Induction Cisplatin Docetaxel Followed by Surgery and Erlotinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy for NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

To date, no meta-analyses have comprehensively assessed the association of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in randomized and nonrandomized settings. In addition, there exists controversy concerning the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for patients with NSCLC with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels less than 1%.

Objective

To compare neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy with chemotherapy by adverse events and surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes using recently published randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized trials.

Data Sources

MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2013, to October 25, 2023, for all clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy that included at least 10 patients.

Study Selection

Observational studies and trials reporting the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy, including chemoradiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy monotherapy, were excluded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Surgical, pathological, and efficacy end points and adverse events were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Among 43 eligible trials comprising 5431 patients (4020 males [74.0%]; median age range, 55-70 years), there were 8 randomized clinical trials with 3387 patients. For randomized clinical trials, pooled overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; I2 = 0%), event-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.67; I2 = 14.9%), major pathological response (risk ratio, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.83-4.15; I2 = 31.2%), and complete pathological response (risk ratio, 5.52; 95% CI, 4.25-7.15; I2 = 27.4%) favored neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For patients with baseline tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1%, there was a significant benefit in event-free survival for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion and Relevance

This study found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy across surgical, pathological, and efficacy outcomes. These findings suggest that patients with resectable NSCLC with tumor PD-L1 levels less than 1% may have an event-free survival benefit with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

Pathological response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy are needed to provide earlier treatment outcome indicators and accelerate drug approval. This study's main objectives were to investigate the association among pathological complete response, major pathological response, event-free survival and overall survival and to determine whether treatment effects on pathological complete response and event-free survival correlate with treatment effects on overall survival.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify neoadjuvant studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Analysis at the patient level using frequentist and Bayesian random effects (hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival or event-free survival by pathological complete response or major pathological response status, yes vs no) and at the trial level using weighted least squares regressions (hazard ratio for overall survival or event-free survival vs pathological complete response, by treatment arm) were performed.

RESULTS

In both meta-analyses, pathological complete response yielded favorable overall survival compared with no pathological complete response (frequentist, 20 studies and 6530 patients: HR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval = 0.42 to 0.57; Bayesian, 19 studies and 5988 patients: HR = 0.48, 95% probability interval = 0.43 to 0.55) and similarly for major pathological response (frequentist, 12 studies and 1193 patients: HR = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.29 to 0.44; Bayesian, 11 studies and 1018 patients: HR = 0.33, 95% probability interval = 0.26 to 0.42). Across subgroups, estimates consistently showed better overall survival or event-free survival in pathological complete response or major pathological response compared with no pathological complete response or no major pathological response. Trial-level analyses showed a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios (R2 = 0.7159) but did not show a correlation between treatment effects on pathological complete response and overall survival or event-free survival.

CONCLUSION

There was a strong and consistent association between pathological response and survival and a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

[Progress on Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Resectable Non-small Cell Lung Cancer]

In recent years, there has been a consensus regarding the enhancement of prognosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Numerous clinical studies have also demonstrated the substantial value of immunotherapy for resectable NSCLC patients. Nevertheless, there remain controversies surrounding the exploration of immune combination strategies, treatment-related side effects, prognostic biomarkers, as well as other issues in the neoadjuvant therapy setting. Consequently, this article presents a comprehensive overview of the recent advancements in neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable NSCLC, stimulating fresh perspectives and delving into its merits and challenges in clinical application.
.

Pathologic Processing of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy

Neoadjuvant treatment of non-small cell lung cancer challenges the traditional processing of pathology specimens. Induction therapy before resection allows evaluation of the efficacy of neoadjuvant agents at the time of surgery. Many clinical trials use pathologic tumor response, measured as major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% residual viable tumor [RVT]) or complete pathologic response (CPR, 0% RVT) as a surrogate of clinical efficacy. Consequently, accurate pathologic evaluation of RVT is crucial. However, pathologic assessment has not been uniform, which is particularly true for sampling of the primary tumor, which instead of the traditional processing, requires different tissue submission because the focus has shifted from tumor typing alone to RVT scoring. Using a simulation study, we analyzed the accuracy rates of %RVT, MPR, and CPR of 31 pretreated primary lung tumors using traditional grossing compared with the gold standard of submitting the entire residual primary tumor and identified the minimum number of tumor sections to be submitted to ensure the most accurate scoring of %RVT, MPR, and CPR. Accurate %RVT, MPR, and CPR calls were achieved in 52%, 87%, and 81% of cases, respectively, using the traditional grossing method. Accuracy rates of at least 90% for these parameters require either submission of all residual primary tumor or at least 20 tumor sections. Accurate %RVT, MPR, and CPR scores cannot be achieved with traditional tumor grossing. Submission of the entire primary tumor, up to a maximum of 20 sections, is required for the most accurate reads.

Perioperative Therapy for Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Weighing Options for the Present and Future

Anatomic surgical resection followed by cisplatin-based platinum-doublet adjuvant chemotherapy has been a long-standing standard of care for patients with early-stage, resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). More recently, incorporating of immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the perioperative setting has demonstrated improved disease-free or event-free survival in biomarker-defined subsets of patients. This article summarizes the results of major trials that led to approvals beyond chemotherapy in the perioperative setting. Alongside adjuvant osimertinib as a favored strategy for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, there are competing potential standards of care for integrating immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant versus adjuvant setting, with advantages and disadvantages for each strategy. Emerging data in the coming years will provide further insight that may potentially lead to a combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment for many patients. Future trials should focus on clarifying the benefit of each component of treatment, defining an optimal treatment duration, and incorporating minimal residual disease to optimize treatment decisions.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

Background

It remains uncertain whether neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (nICI) is superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. In addition, there are outstanding questions for nICI such as the ideal treatment mode and predictors.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and scientific meetings were searched for eligible single-arm or multi-arm trials until 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes of interest were major pathological response (MPR) and pathological complete response (pCR). The random-effect model was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Twenty-four trials of nICI (n = 1,043) and 29 trials of nCT (n = 2,337) were identified. nICI combination therapy was associated with higher MPR (63.2%, 95% CI: 54.2%–72.1%) and pCR (35.3%, 95% CI: 27.4%–43.3%) rates compared to nCT (16.2%, 95% CI: 7.5%–25.0%, P < 0.001 and 5.5%, 95% CI: 3.5%–7.5%, P < 0.001) and nICI monotherapy (23.3%, 95% CI: 12.7%–33.8%, P < 0.001, and 6.5%, 95% CI: 1.7%–11.2%, P < 0.001). As for safety, nICI monotherapy had the best tolerability; nICI combination showed a similar surgical resection rate and higher R0 resection rate compared to nCT. PD-1 inhibitor and high PD-L1 expression (≥1% or ≥50%) were correlated with higher MPR and pCR rates compared to PD-L1 inhibitor and PD-L1 expression <1%.

Conclusions

nICI combination therapy is associated with higher MPR and pCR rates compared to nCT and nICI monotherapy. PD-1 inhibitor seems to be superior to PD-L1 inhibitor. PD-L1 status appears to be predictive of MPR and pCR for patients receiving nICI.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=278661, CRD42021278661.

Perioperative Systemic Therapy for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Despite remarkable treatment advancements in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), recurrence rates for those with resectable, early-stage disease remains high. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are 2 promising treatment modalities that may improve survival outcomes for patients with resected NSCLC when moved from the advanced stage to the curable setting. There are many clinical studies that have evaluated or are currently evaluating immunotherapy or targeted therapy in the perioperative setting, and recent trials such as CheckMate 816, ADAURA, and IMpower010 have led to new approvals and demonstrated the promise of this approach. This review discusses recent and ongoing neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy trials in NSCLC, and where the field may be going in the near future.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy across cancers: meeting report from the Immunotherapy Bridge-December 1st-2nd, 2021

After the success of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced metastatic cancer, further evaluation in earlier settings, including high-risk, surgically-resectable disease is underway. Potential benefits of a neoadjuvant immunotherapeutic approach include presurgical tumor shrinkage, reduced surgical morbidity, early eradication of micrometastases and prevention of distant disease, and greater antigen-specific T cell response. For some cancers, pathologic response has been established as a surrogate measure for long-term outcomes, therefore offering the ability for early and objective assessment of treatment efficacy and the potential to inform and personalize adjuvant treatment clinical decision-making. Leveraging the neoadjuvant treatment setting offers the ability to deeply interrogate longitudinal tissue in order to gain translatable, pan-malignancy insights into response and mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy across cancers was a focus of discussion at the virtual Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (December 1-2, 2021). Clinical, biomarker, and pathologic insights from prostate, breast, colon, and non-small-cell lung cancers, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers were discussed and are summarized in this report.

Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy: Leveraging the Immune System to Treat Early-Stage Disease

Given the success of immunotherapy in treating patients with metastatic disease in a variety of tumor types, there is tremendous enthusiasm for expanding the use of immunotherapy to those with early-stage cancer. Administering immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant, preoperative setting is a biologically sound approach because preclinical studies have shown that stronger and broader immune responses can be generated if immunotherapy is administered while the tumor and/or draining lymph nodes are intact. It is therefore likely that administering immunotherapy preoperatively will generate optimal immune responses, leading to high rates of pathologic response as well as improved long-term survival. Although neoadjuvant immunotherapy is currently only approved for use in combination with chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer, it is anticipated that ongoing and future clinical trials will further define the role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in many cancer types. These trials should be designed with appropriate survival endpoints and rigorous correlative studies to include imaging and biospecimen-based analyses to address currently unanswered questions that must be resolved to optimize the use of immunotherapy in early-stage disease.

Real-world multicentre analysis of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy in localized or oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (KOMPASSneoOP)

Background:

Recent clinical trials demonstrate the feasibility of neoadjuvant immuno(chemo)therapy and report high rates of pathological remission, a surrogate marker for overall survival.

Patients and methods:

This is a retrospective multicentre real-world analysis of patients with locally resectable NSCLC, including oligometastatic disease, who received neoadjuvant immuno(chemo)therapy and resection. Consolidating immunotherapy was applied following multidisciplinary board recommendation. Primary endpoint was the rate of complete pathological response (pCR, no residual vital tumour cells) or major pathological response (MPR, ⩽ 10% residual vital tumour cells). Secondary endpoints included the radiological response and survival.

Results:

Seven centres contributed 59 patients (56% stage IIB–IIIC, 44% in stage IVA–IVB with up to four oligometastatic sites). MPR was found in 68% including 53% with pCR. There were no radiological progressions. Median follow-up was 24.3 months. At 12 and 24 months, progression-free survival was 82.6% and 68.1%, and overall survival was 89.5% and 87.2%, respectively.

Conclusion:

To our knowledge, this study encompassed the largest NSCLC real-world cohort treated with neoadjuvant immuno(chemo)therapy to date. In routine clinical practice, resection after neoadjuvant immuno(chemo)therapy is feasible in patients with locally resectable NSCLC, including oligometastatic disease. In line with clinical trials, we found MPR in more than two-thirds of patients. Early data show encouraging survival.

Neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitor combines with chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the lung

BACKGROUND

A single-agent of anti programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) therapy has been explored for resectable lung cancer before surgery. However, the effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade combined with chemotherapy have not been published.

METHODS

Twenty-one consecutive patients with potentially resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery in Beijing Cancer Hospital were included in this study. Eight patients received two cycles of neoadjuvant platinum-based doublet chemotherapy combined with anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) therapy, while 13 patients received two cycles of neoadjuvant platinum-based doublet chemotherapy only. Chest computed tomography was repeated before neoadjuvant treatment and surgery. Adverse events were monitored. The major pathological response (MPR) rate was determined after surgery. Selected specimens were sent for immunohistochemical and multiplex immunofluorescence analyses, and T-cell receptor DNA sequencing.

RESULTS

Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, the combination of PD-1 blockade and chemotherapy increased the pathological complete response rate (37.5% vs. 7.69%) and MPR rate (50% vs. 38.46%). The pathological and radiological evaluations are not consistent. No unknown adverse effects were reported for all the patients. More tumor infiltrating lymphocytes were observed in patients who received PD-1 blockade. No unknown pathological features associated with PD-1 blockade were found. Immune suppression in the peritumoral spaces around the residual tumor cells was observed. The amino acid sequences of the T-cell receptors are not significantly shared among the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and PD-1 blockade is safe and feasible, and might indicate an increased MPR and pathological complete response rate. More investigations are needed for the best combination of the neoadjuvant therapy.

Neoadjuvant Therapy in Lung Cancer: What Is Most Important: Objective Response Rate or Major Pathological Response?

Lung cancer is the most fatal and frequently diagnosed malignant tumor. Neoadjuvant therapy is a promising approach for prolonging survival and increasing the chance of cure rates for patients with potentially resectable disease. Currently, many therapeutic alternatives, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, are continually being explored to enrich the content of neoadjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy remains to have no unified evaluation standards. Overall survival (OS) is the "gold standard" for evaluating the clinical benefit of cancer treatment, but it needs years for a reliable evaluation. Hence, researchers need to identify surrogate endpoints that can predict OS accurately and reliably without long follow-up periods. In this review, we describe the research progress of different neoadjuvant therapies and explore their response evaluation, aiming to identify stronger predictors of OS.

Evolution of systemic therapy for stages I-III non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

The treatment goal for patients with early-stage lung cancer is cure. Multidisciplinary discussions of surgical resectability and medical operability determine the modality of definitive local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) and the associated systemic therapies to further improve the likelihood of cure. Trial evidence supports cisplatin-based adjuvant therapy either after surgical resection or concurrently with radiotherapy. Consensus guidelines support neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lieu of adjuvant chemotherapy and carboplatin-based regimens for patients who are ineligible for cisplatin. The incorporation of newer agents, now standard for patients with stage IV lung cancer, into the curative therapy paradigm has lagged owing to inefficient trial designs, the lengthy follow-up needed to assess survival end points and a developmental focus on the advanced-stage disease setting. Surrogate end points, such as pathological response, are being studied and might shorten trial durations. In 2018, the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab was approved for patients with stage III lung cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Since then, the study of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in patients with early-stage lung cancer has rapidly expanded. In this Review, we present the current considerations in the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer and explore the current and future state of clinical research to develop systemic therapies for non-metastatic lung cancer.

Evolution of systemic therapy for stages I-III non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

The treatment goal for patients with early-stage lung cancer is cure. Multidisciplinary discussions of surgical resectability and medical operability determine the modality of definitive local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) and the associated systemic therapies to further improve the likelihood of cure. Trial evidence supports cisplatin-based adjuvant therapy either after surgical resection or concurrently with radiotherapy. Consensus guidelines support neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lieu of adjuvant chemotherapy and carboplatin-based regimens for patients who are ineligible for cisplatin. The incorporation of newer agents, now standard for patients with stage IV lung cancer, into the curative therapy paradigm has lagged owing to inefficient trial designs, the lengthy follow-up needed to assess survival end points and a developmental focus on the advanced-stage disease setting. Surrogate end points, such as pathological response, are being studied and might shorten trial durations. In 2018, the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab was approved for patients with stage III lung cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Since then, the study of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in patients with early-stage lung cancer has rapidly expanded. In this Review, we present the current considerations in the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer and explore the current and future state of clinical research to develop systemic therapies for non-metastatic lung cancer.

Neoadjuvant osimertinib with/without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for EGFR-mutated resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: NeoADAURA

Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible oral EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor), that potently inhibits EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor-sensitizing mutations and T790M resistance mutations together with efficacy in CNS metastases in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we describe the rationale and design for the Phase III NeoADAURA study (NCT04351555), which will evaluate neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone prior to surgery, in patients with resectable stage II-IIIB N2 EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. The primary end point is centrally assessed major pathological response at the time of resection. Secondary end points include event-free survival, pathological complete response, nodal downstaging at the time of surgery, disease-free survival, overall survival and health-related quality of life. Safety and tolerability will also be assessed. Trial Registration number: NCT04351555 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pathological nodal disease defines survival outcomes in patients with lung cancer with tumour major pathological response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Major pathological response (MPR) is prognostic of outcomes for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and is used as the primary end point in neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials. We studied the influence of pathological nodal disease on patterns and timing of recurrence among patients with MPR.

METHODS

Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stages I-III non-small-cell lung cancer were identified. Surgical specimens were histopathologically examined for tumour viability, categorized as ≤10% viability (MPR) or >10% (NoMPR). Overall survival and disease-free survival were evaluated with emphasis upon MPR and pathological nodal disease.

RESULTS

Among 307 patients, 58 (19%) had MPR within primary tumour and 42 (14%) had MPRypN0. In the MPR group, the frequency of cN0 and cN+ disease was 18 (31%) and 40 (69%); similarly, the frequency of ypN0, ypN1 and ypN2 was 72% (42/58), 16% (9/58) and 12% (7/58), respectively. When evaluating only those with MPR, recurrence rates among those with MPRypN0, MPRypN1 and MPRypN2 were 33% (14/42), 44% (4/9) and 71% (5/7) (P = 0.16). The median time-to-recurrence in MPRypN0, MPRypN1 and MPRypN2 was 40, 10 and 14 months (P = 0.006). Distant recurrences were less common among those with MPRypN0 [MPRypN0, 26% (11/42); MPRypN1, 44% (4/9); MPRypN2, 71% (5/7); P = 0.047]. Though the median disease-free survival was prolonged among those with MPR vs NoMPR (120 vs 25 months, P < 0.0001), only those with MPRypN0 had prolonged disease-free survival in comparison to other groups upon pairwise comparisons, while MPRypN+ experienced no benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

MPRypN0 represents the most favourable surrogate end point following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with ypN1-2 are at the risk of early recurrence regardless of primary tumour MPR, warranting intensive surveillance and consideration for additional adjuvant therapy. We highlight that MPRypN0 is the most rigorous end point and should be considered as a surrogate end point in future neoadjuvant trials.

New developments in locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

Locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer, due to its varying prognosis, is grouped according to TNM stage IIIA, IIIB and IIIC. Developments over the last 3 years have been focused on the integration of immunotherapy into the combination treatment of a locally definitive therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) and chemotherapy. For concurrent chemoradiotherapy, consolidation therapy with durvalumab was established. Adjuvant targeted therapy has again gained increasing interest. In order to adapt treatment to the specific stage subgroup and its prognosis, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and pathological evaluation of the mediastinum are important. Tumours should be investigated for immunological features and driver mutations. Regarding toxicity, evaluation of pulmonary and cardiac function, as well as symptoms and quality of life, is of increasing importance. To improve the management and prognosis of this heterogeneous entity, clinical trials and registries should take these factors into account.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in operable non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2 randomized NEOSTAR trial

Ipilimumab improves clinical outcomes when combined with nivolumab in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its efficacy and impact on the immune microenvironment in operable NSCLC remain unclear. We report the results of the phase 2 randomized NEOSTAR trial (NCT03158129) of neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab + ipilimumab followed by surgery in 44 patients with operable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) as the primary endpoint. The MPR rate for each treatment arm was tested against historical controls of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The nivolumab + ipilimumab arm met the prespecified primary endpoint threshold of 6 MPRs in 21 patients, achieving a 38% MPR rate (8/21). We observed a 22% MPR rate (5/23) in the nivolumab arm. In 37 patients resected on trial, nivolumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab produced MPR rates of 24% (5/21) and 50% (8/16), respectively. Compared with nivolumab, nivolumab + ipilimumab resulted in higher pathologic complete response rates (10% versus 38%), less viable tumor (median 50% versus 9%), and greater frequencies of effector, tissue-resident memory and effector memory T cells. Increased abundance of gut Ruminococcus and Akkermansia spp. was associated with MPR to dual therapy. Our data indicate that neoadjuvant nivolumab + ipilimumab-based therapy enhances pathologic responses, tumor immune infiltrates and immunologic memory, and merits further investigation in operable NSCLC.

Controversies and challenges in the pathologic examination of lung resection specimens after neoadjuvant treatment

New therapy approaches in the treatment of surgically resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) challenge the traditional handling and examination of pathology specimens. The increasingly common use of neoadjuvant therapies before surgical resection, due to advantages in novel drug administration, tolerance, and measurement of radiographic and pathologic response compared to adjuvant treatment, has the potential to alter the microscopic tumor appearance and its biology. Currently, many clinical trials use pathologic response as a surrogate endpoint of clinical efficacy, since the extent of residual viable tumor appears to correlate with outcome in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Consequently, pathologic assessment of the extent of residual viable tumor is of paramount importance. However, high level evidence-based guidelines on how to process and evaluate such specimens are lacking. Moreover, while pathologic response has been shown to be associated with survival after chemotherapy, its significance after immunotherapy remains to be determined. Additionally, many clinical trials do not routinely include pathologists in trial design, which may lead to non-standardized evaluation of pathologic response. Although recently, several algorithms have been proposed to address these issues, none of them represents evidence-based recommendations or is universally applied. Therefore, controversies and challenges continue to exist, raising concerns about the validity, reproducibility, and comparability of the results of many neoadjuvant clinical trials. Herein, we discuss the current difficulties in pathologic specimen evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy in NSCLC and propose potential approaches to overcome these challenges.

Emerging biomarkers for neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in operable non-small cell lung cancer

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has dramatically changed the treatment of patients with locally advanced unresectable and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Now, ICIs are undergoing evaluation as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage, resectable NSCLC using candidate surrogate endpoints of clinical efficacy, i.e., major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor cells in resected tumors). The initial results from early, small-scale trials are encouraging; however, they also reveal that a substantial number of patients with operable disease may not benefit from neoadjuvant ICIs. Consequently, much investigative effort is currently directed toward identifying mechanisms of resistance to ICI therapy in resectable NSCLC. There is also an urgent need for biomarkers that could be used to guide the clinical decision-making process and maximize the clinical benefit of ICIs in patients with early-stage, resectable NSCLC. Here, we summarize the initial results from the trials of neoadjuvant ICIs in patients with early-stage and locally advanced operable NSCLC and review the findings of studies investigating emerging biomarkers associated with those trials.

A Phase I/II Study of Neoadjuvant Cisplatin, Docetaxel, and Nintedanib for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Nintedanib enhances the activity of chemotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this phase I/II study, we assessed safety and efficacy of nintedanib plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy, using major pathologic response (MPR) as primary endpoint.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had stage IB (≥4 cm)-IIIA resectable NSCLC. A safety run-in phase was followed by an expansion phase with nintedanib 200 mg orally twice a day (28 days), followed by three cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m²), docetaxel (75 mg/m²) every 21 days plus nintedanib, followed by surgery. With 33 planned patients, the study had 90% power to detect an MPR increase from 15% to 35%.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (stages I/II/III, N = 1/8/12) were treated. One of 15 patients treated with nintedanib 200 mg achieved MPR [7%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.2%-32%]. Best ORR in 20 evaluable patients was 30% (6/20, 95% CI, 12%-54%). Twelve-month recurrence-free survival and overall survival were 66% (95% CI, 47%-93%) and 91% (95% CI, 79%-100%), respectively. Most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 toxicities were transaminitis and electrolyte abnormalities. On the basis of an interim analysis the study was discontinued for futility. Higher levels of CD3⁺ and cytotoxic CD3⁺CD8⁺ T cells were found in treated tumors of patients who were alive than in those who died (652.8 vs. 213.4 cells/mm², P = 0.048; 142.3 vs. 35.6 cells/mm², P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Although tolerated, neoadjuvant nintedanib plus chemotherapy did not increase MPR rate compared with chemotherapy historical controls. Additional studies of the combination in this setting are not recommended. Posttreatment levels of tumor-infiltrating T cells were associated with patient survival. Use of MPR facilitates the rapid evaluation of neoadjuvant therapies.See related commentary by Blakely and McCoach, p. 3499.

IASLC Multidisciplinary Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens After Neoadjuvant Therapy

Currently, there is no established guidance on how to process and evaluate resected lung cancer specimens after neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of clinical trials and clinical practice. There is also a lack of precise definitions on the degree of pathologic response, including major pathologic response or complete pathologic response. For other cancers such as osteosarcoma and colorectal, breast, and esophageal carcinomas, there have been multiple studies investigating pathologic assessment of the effects of neoadjuvant therapy, including some detailed recommendations on how to handle these specimens. A comprehensive mapping approach to gross and histologic processing of osteosarcomas after induction therapy has been used for over 40 years. The purpose of this article is to outline detailed recommendations on how to process lung cancer resection specimens and to define pathologic response, including major pathologic response or complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant therapy. A standardized approach is recommended to assess the percentages of (1) viable tumor, (2) necrosis, and (3) stroma (including inflammation and fibrosis) with a total adding up to 100%. This is recommended for all systemic therapies, including chemotherapy, chemoradiation, molecular-targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or any future novel therapies yet to be discovered, whether administered alone or in combination. Specific issues may differ for certain therapies such as immunotherapy, but the grossing process should be similar, and the histologic evaluation should contain these basic elements. Standard pathologic response assessment should allow for comparisons between different therapies and correlations with disease-free survival and overall survival in ongoing and future trials. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has an effort to collect such data from existing and future clinical trials. These recommendations are intended as guidance for clinical trials, although it is hoped they can be viewed as suggestion for good clinical practice outside of clinical trials, to improve consistency of pathologic assessment of treatment response.

Major Pathologic Response after Induction Therapy Has a Long-Term Impact on Survival and Tumor Recurrence in Stage IIIA/B Locally Advanced NSCLC

BACKGROUND

Major pathologic response (MPR) determines favorable outcome in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer after induction therapy (IT) followed by lung resection. The aim of this retrospective study was to identify the prognostic relevance of MPR in long-term interval.

METHODS

In 55 patients, the survival rate according to MPR and non-MPR was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank, Breslow, and Tarone-Ware tests.

RESULTS

The IT included chemoradiation with 50.4 Gy (range: 45-56.4 Gy) combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in 52 patients (94.5%) and platinum-based chemotherapy in 3 patients (5.5%). Perioperative morbidity and 30-day mortality were 36 and 3.6%, respectively. The estimated 5-year postoperative and progressive-free survivals were statistically significantly improved in MPR versus non-MPR with 53.5 versus 18% and 49.4 versus 18.5%, respectively. According to the log-rank, Breslow, and Tarone-Ware tests, the MPR demonstrates prognostic significance in early, long-term, and whole postoperative interval.

CONCLUSION

MPR is associated with a robust correlation to long-term postoperative and recurrence-free survival improvement, and can potentially simplify the multidisciplinary debate and allow further stratification of adjuvant treatment in multimodality therapy.