Bintrafusp Alfa, a Bifunctional Fusion Protein Targeting TGF-β and PD-L1, in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Resistant or Refractory to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Bintrafusp alfa is a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of transforming growth factor beta receptor II (a TGF-β "trap") fused to a human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1). We report the efficacy and safety in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progressed following anti-PD-(L)1 therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this expansion cohort of NCT02517398-a global, open-label, phase I trial-adults with advanced NSCLC that progressed following chemotherapy and was primary refractory or had acquired resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 treatment received intravenous bintrafusp alfa 1200 mg every 2 weeks until confirmed progression, unacceptable toxicity, or trial withdrawal. The primary endpoint was best overall response (by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 adjudicated by independent review committee); secondary endpoints included safety.

RESULTS

Eighty-three eligible patients (62 [74.7%] treated with ≥3 prior therapies) received bintrafusp alfa. Four patients (3 primary refractory, 1 acquired resistant) had confirmed partial responses (objective response rate, 4.8%; 95% CI, 1.3%-11.9%), and 9 had stable disease. Tumor cell PD-L1 expression was not associated with response. Nineteen patients (22.9%) experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events, most commonly asthenia (3 [3.6%]) and fatigue, eczema, and pruritus (2 each [2.4%]). One patient had grade 4 amylase increased. One patient died during treatment for pneumonia before initiation of bintrafusp alfa.

CONCLUSION

Although the primary endpoint was not met, bintrafusp alfa showed some clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated NSCLC, including prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. Tumor responses occurred irrespective of whether disease was primary refractory or had acquired resistance to prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy.

PTPRD/PTPRT mutation as a predictive biomarker of immune checkpoint inhibitors across multiple cancer types

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are dramatically changing the treatment landscape of a variety of cancers. Nevertheless, the variability in ICI responses highlight the importance in identifying predictive biomarkers. PTPRD and PTPRT (PTPRD/PTPRT) are the phosphatases of JAK-STAT signaling, a critical pathway in anti-cancer immunity regulation. However, the pan-cancer association between PTPRD/PTPRT mutation and the efficacy of ICIs remains unclear across pan-cancer patients.

Methods

We analyzed the association between PTPRD/PTPRT mutations and patient outcomes using clinical data and genomic mutations from TCGA pan-cancer cohort. Furthermore, the ICI-treatment cohort was used to evaluate the relationship between PTPRD/PTPRT mutation and the efficacy of ICIs. Another ICIs-treatment cohort was used to validate the findings. The TCGA pan-cancer dataset was analyzed to explore the correlation between PTPRD/PTPRT mutations and immune signatures. Moreover, we combined four factors to construct a nomogram model that could be used to predict the survival of pan-cancer patients receiving ICI treatment. The calibration curves and area under the curve were applied to assess the performance of the model.

Results

PTPRD/PTPRT mutations were shown to be associated with a worse prognosis in TCGA cohort (P < 0.05). In the Samstein cohort, prolonged overall survival (OS) was observed in PTPRD/PTPRT mutant cancers, compared with wild-type cancers (mOS: 40.00 vs 16.00 months, HR = 0.570, 95%CI: 0.479-0.679, P < 0.0001). In the validation cohort, significant OS advantage was observed in PTPRD/PTPRT mutant patients (mOS: 31.32 vs 15.53 months, HR = 0.658, 95%CI: 0.464-0.934, P = 0.0292). Furthermore, PTPRD/PTPRT mutations were associated with a higher tumor mutational burden, MSI score, and TCR score (P < 0.0001). Enhanced immune signatures were found in the PTPRD/PTPRT mutant cancers (P < 0.05). Finally, we successfully established a nomogram model that could be used to predict the survival of NSCLC patients who received ICI treatment. Based on the risk score of the model, patients in the low-risk group showed a better mOS than those in the high-risk group (mOS: 2.75 vs 1.08 years, HR = 0.567, 95%CI: 0.492-0.654; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

PTPRD/PTPRT mutations may be a potential biomarker for predicting ICI treatment responsiveness in multiple cancer types.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R² were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy.

RESULTS

From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R² estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R² = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R² = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R² = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R² = 0.49; 0.23-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

Modeling Challenges in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Immuno-Oncology Therapies in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has changed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and technology appraisals (TAs) evaluating IO therapies have been recently published.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed economic models of first-line (1L) IO therapies for previously untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC to identify methodological challenges associated with modeling cost effectiveness from published literature and TAs and to make recommendations for future CEAs in this disease area.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted following Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit (January 2009-January 2020), and select conferences (since 2016) for CEAs of 1L IO treatments in patients with recurrent or metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation-negative NSCLC, published in English. TAs from England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France were also examined. Two reviewers screened the results and extracted the data. The quality of the CEAs was described using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 46 records reporting on 38 unique models met protocol-defined criteria and were included. Five models adjusted for treatment switching or crossover in base-case analyses, and the remainder considered treatment switching or crossover to represent clinical practice and made no adjustment. Seven models used external real-world data for survival modeling or extrapolation validation. Six models that assumed long-term treatment benefit stopped at 3 or 5 years after initiation. Seven models used the observed time-on-treatment distribution from the trial, and eight used progression-free survival for treatment duration. All models compared one or more IO monotherapies or combination therapies with chemotherapy. Only one study directly compared different IO agents but did not consider the concordance issue across programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing methods. Utilities were modeled by health state in 12 models, four applied a time-to-death approach, and ten explored both. None applied cure models.

CONCLUSION

Variations in methodological challenges were seen across studies. Previous models took approaches that were followed in subsequent models, such as a 2-year stopping rule of IO duration or treatment-effect waning. Challenges such as heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing and survival extrapolation and validation using real-world data should be further considered for future models in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Progression-free survival assessed per immune-related or conventional response criteria, which is the better surrogate endpoint for overall survival in trials of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Progression-free survival (PFS) has been used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in lung cancer trials. The pattern of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) differs from that to conventional chemotherapy, so immune-related response evaluation criteria were proposed. This study aims at determining which PFS measure, PFS assessed per immune-related response evaluation criteria (iPFS), or conventional criteria (cPFS), is the better surrogate endpoint for OS in trials of ICIs in lung cancer. We selected clinical trials in lung cancer that administered ICIs to at least one arm and reported both median OS and median PFS from PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. We compared the correlation between treatment effect (hazard ratio) on OS and cPFS or iPFS and the correlation between median OS and median cPFS or iPFS using weighted linear regression at trial level. We analyzed 78 ICI arms (13,438 patients) from 54 studies, including 66 arms with cPFS, seven arms with iPFS, and five arms with both kinds of PFS. We demonstrated an excellent correlation between treatment effect (hazard ratio) on OS and iPFS (RWLS2  = 0.91), while the correlation was moderate for cPFS (RWLS2  = 0.38). Similarly, the correlation between median OS and median iPFS was also strong (RWLS2 ranging from 0.86 to 0.96) across different phases of trials and different types of lung cancer, ICI, and treatment modalities, while it was much weaker for median cPFS (RWLS2 ranging from 0.28 to 0.88). In conclusion, iPFS provides better trial-level surrogacy for OS than cPFS in trials of ICIs in lung cancer.

Veliparib in Combination With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Squamous Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Study

PURPOSE

Squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) is genetically complex with evidence of DNA damage. This phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib in combination with conventional chemotherapy for advanced sqNSCLC (NCT02106546).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients age ≥ 18 years with untreated, advanced sqNSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to carboplatin and paclitaxel with veliparib 120 mg twice daily (twice a day) or placebo twice a day for up to six cycles. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the veliparib arm versus the control arm in current smokers, based on phase II findings. Archival tumor samples were provided for biomarker analysis using a 52-gene expression histology classifier (LP52).

RESULTS

Overall, 970 patients were randomly assigned to carboplatin and paclitaxel plus either veliparib (n = 486) or placebo (n = 484); 57% were current smokers. There was no significant OS benefit with veliparib in current smokers, with median OS 11.9 versus 11.1 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.905; 95% CI, 0.744 to 1.101; P = .266). In the overall population, OS favored veliparib; median OS was 12.2 versus 11.2 months (HR, 0.853; 95% CI, 0.747 to 0.974), with no difference in progression-free survival (median 5.6 months per arm). In patients with biomarker-evaluable tumor samples (n = 360), OS favored veliparib in the LP52-positive population (median 14.0 v 9.6 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89), but favored placebo in the LP52-negative population (median 11.0 v 14.4 months; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.86). No new safety signals were observed in the experimental arm.

CONCLUSION

In current smokers with advanced sqNSCLC, there was no therapeutic benefit of adding veliparib to first-line chemotherapy. The LP52 signature may identify a subgroup of patients likely to derive benefit from veliparib with chemotherapy.

Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells: Implications in the Resistance of Malignant Tumors to T Cell-Based Immunotherapy

T lymphocytes function as major players in antigen-mediated cytotoxicity and have become powerful tools for exploiting the immune system in tumor elimination. Several types of T cell-based immunotherapies have been prescribed to cancer patients with durable immunological response. Such strategies include immune checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive T cell therapy, cancer vaccines, oncolytic virus, and modulatory cytokines. However, the majority of cancer patients still failed to take the advantage of these kinds of treatments. Currently, extensive attempts are being made to uncover the potential mechanism of immunotherapy resistance, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) have been identified as one of vital interpretable factors. Here, we discuss the immunosuppressive mechanism of MDSCs and their contributions to failures of T cell-based immunotherapy. Additionally, we summarize combination therapies to ameliorate the efficacy of T cell-based immunotherapy.

The Effect of Asymptomatic and/or Treated Brain Metastases on Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the effect of asymptomatic and/or treated brain metastases (BMs) on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and recent meetings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Seventeen articles reporting 15 RCTs with 10,358 patients (1,199 with and 9,159 without BMs) were eligible. ICIs were associated with longer OS and PFS than those in chemotherapy either in patients with (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.82 and HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79) or without BMs (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.78 and HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86); no significant difference in the pooled HRs for OS (Pinteraction = 0.29) and PFS (Pinteraction = 0.37) was observed between the two patient populations. Subgroup analyses revealed that either ICI monotherapy or combination therapy significantly improved OS and PFS compared with those in chemotherapy both for patients with and without BMs. Superior OS benefit from ICI combination therapy than that in monotherapy was observed in patients with BMs (HR, 0.49 vs. 0.81, Pinteraction = 0.005) but not in patients without BMs (HR, 0.71 vs. 0.76, Pinteraction = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

There was no compelling statistical evidence that the efficacy of ICIs in metastatic NSCLC was modified by the presence of asymptomatic and/or treated BMs. Patients with BMs were likely to obtain more OS benefit from ICI combination therapy than that from monotherapy.

Lung Cancer Stem Cells-Origin, Diagnostic Techniques and Perspective for Therapies

Lung cancer remains one of the most aggressive solid tumors with an overall poor prognosis. Molecular studies carried out on lung tumors during treatment have shown the phenomenon of clonal evolution, thereby promoting the occurrence of a temporal heterogeneity of the tumor. Therefore, the biology of lung cancer is interesting. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are involved in tumor initiation and metastasis. Aging is still the most important risk factor for lung cancer development. Spontaneously occurring mutations accumulate in normal stem cells or/and progenitor cells by human life resulting in the formation of CSCs. Deepening knowledge of these complex processes and improving early recognition and markers of predictive value are of utmost importance. In this paper, we discuss the CSC hypothesis with an emphasis on age-related changes that initiate carcinogenesis. We analyze the current literature in the field, describe our own experience in CSC investigation and discuss the technical challenges with special emphasis on liquid biopsy.

The prognostic impact of tumor mutational burden (TMB) in the first-line management of advanced non-oncogene addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The role of tumor mutational burden (TMB) is still debated for selecting advanced non-oncogene addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who might benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Of note, TMB failed to predict a benefit in overall survival (OS) among such patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy outcomes among first-line immune-oncology (IO) agents versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) within two subgroups (TMB-low and TMB-high on either tissue or blood). We collected hazard ratios (HRs) to evaluate the association for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, with the relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used as an association measure for objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Eight different cohorts of five randomized controlled phase III studies (3848 patients) were analyzed. In TMB-high patients, IO agents were associated with improved ORR (RRs 1.37, 95% CI 1.13-1.66), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.79) and OS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77) when compared with CT, thus suggesting a possible predictive role of high TMB for IO regimens. In TMB-low patients, the IO strategy did not lead to any significant benefit in survival and activity, whereas the pooled results of both ORR and PFS were intriguingly associated with a statistical significance in favor of CT.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis resulted in a proven benefit in OS in favor of IO agents in the TMB-high population. Although more prospective data are warranted, we postulated the hypothesis that monitoring TMB, in addition to the existing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level, could represent the preferable option for future clinical research in the first-line management of advanced non-oncogene addicted NSCLC patients.

Nanotechnology synergized immunoengineering for cancer

Novel strategies modulating the immune system yielded enhanced anticancer responses and improved cancer survival. Nevertheless, the success rate of immunotherapy in cancer treatment has been below expectation(s) due to unpredictable efficacy and off-target effects from systemic dosing of immunotherapeutic(s). As a result, there is an unmet clinical need for improving conventional immunotherapy. Nanotechnology offers several new strategies, multimodality, and multiplex biological targeting advantage to overcome many of these challenges. These efforts enable programming the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and delivery of immunomodulatory agents/co-delivery of compounds to prime at the tumor sites for improved therapeutic benefits. This review provides an overview of the design and clinical principles of biomaterials driven nanotechnology and their potential use in personalized nanomedicines, vaccines, localized tumor modulation, and delivery strategies for cancer immunotherapy. In this review, we also summarize the latest highlights and recent advances in combinatorial therapies availed in the treatment of cold and complicated tumors. It also presents key steps and parameters implemented for clinical success. Finally, we analyse, discuss, and provide clinical perspectives on the integrated opportunities of nanotechnology and immunology to achieve synergistic and durable responses in cancer treatment.

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.

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.

Immune Modulation in Lung Cancer: Current Concepts and Future Strategies

Cancer immunotherapy represents the most dynamic field of biomedical research currently, with thoracic immuno-oncology as a forerunner. PD-(L)1 inhibitors are already part of standard first-line treatment for both non-small-cell and small-cell lung cancer, while unprecedented 5-year survival rates of 15-25% have been achieved in pretreated patients with metastatic disease. Evolving strategies are mainly aiming for improvement of T-cell function, increase of immune activation in the tumor microenvironment (TME), and supply of tumor-reactive lymphocytes. Several novel therapeutics have demonstrated preclinical efficacy and are increasingly used in rational combinations within clinical trials. Two overarching trends dominate: extension of immunotherapy to earlier disease stages, mainly as neoadjuvant treatment, and a shift of focus towards multivalent, individualized, mutatome-based antigen-specific modalities, mainly adoptive cell therapies and cancer vaccines. The former ensures ample availability of treated and untreated patient samples, the latter facilitates deeper mechanistic insights, and both in combination build an overwhelming force that is accelerating progress and driving the greatest revolution cancer medicine has seen so far. Today, immune modulation represents the most potent therapeutic modality in oncology, the most important topic in clinical and translational cancer research, and arguably our greatest, meanwhile justified hope for achieving cure of pulmonary neoplasms and other malignancies in the next future.

Quantifying PD-L1 Expression to Monitor Immune Checkpoint Therapy: Opportunities and Challenges

Simple Summary

Malignant cells hijack the regulatory roles of immune checkpoint proteins for immune evasion and survival. Therapeutics blocking those proteins can restore the balance of the immune system and lead to durable responses in cancer patients. Although a subset of patients derive benefit, there are few non-invasive technologies to guide and monitor those therapies to improve success rates. This is a review of the advancements in non-invasive methods for quantification of immune checkpoint protein programmed death ligand 1 expression, a biomarker detected by immunohistochemistry and widely used for guiding immune checkpoint therapy.

Abstract

Therapeutics targeting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein and its receptor PD-1 are now dominant players in restoring anti-tumor immune responses. PD-L1 detection by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is emerging as a reproducible biomarker for guiding patient stratification for those therapies in some cancers. However, PD-L1 expression in the tumor microenvironment is highly complex. It is upregulated by aberrant genetic alterations, and is highly regulated at the transcriptional, posttranscriptional, and protein levels. Thus, PD-L1 IHC is inadequate to fully understand the relevance of PD-L1 levels in the whole body and their dynamics to improve therapeutic outcomes. Imaging technologies could potentially assist in meeting that need. Early clinical investigations show promising results in quantifying PD-L1 expression in the whole body by positron emission tomography (PET). Within this context, this review summarizes advancements in regulation of PD-L1 expression and imaging agents, and in PD-L1 PET for drug development, and discusses opportunities and challenges presented by these innovations for guiding immune checkpoint therapy (ICT).

Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung: Current Treatment Approaches and the Role of Afatinib

Options for the treatment of squamous cell lung carcinoma expanded in recent years with the introduction of the immune checkpoint inhibitors into routine clinical practice in both the first- and second-line settings but are still limited. As a result, pembrolizumab, given either alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, is now a standard first-line treatment for squamous cell lung cancer. However, few options exist once patients have progressed on immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy. In this setting, the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, has a potential role as second or subsequent therapy for some patients. The Phase III LUX-Lung 8 study demonstrated that afatinib significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival compared with erlotinib in patients with squamous cell lung carcinoma. Notably, retrospective, ad-hoc biomarker analyses of a subset of patients from LUX-Lung 8 suggested that patients with ErbB family mutations derived particular benefit from afatinib, especially those with ErbB2 (HER2) mutations. Afatinib has a manageable and predictable safety profile, and adverse events can be managed with the use of a tolerability-guided dose modification protocol. Until more data are available, afatinib could be considered as a potential second-line treatment option for patients who have progressed on combined pembrolizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy and are ineligible for more established second-line options, or as a third-line option in patients who have received first-line immunotherapy, and second-line chemotherapy or chemotherapy and antiangiogenesis therapy. However, further data are required to support the use of afatinib following immunotherapy. Given that treatment options are limited in both of these settings, investigating an agent with an entirely new mechanism of action is warranted. If available, molecular analysis to identify ErbB family mutations or the use of proteomic profiling could help to further isolate patients who are likely to derive the most benefit from afatinib.

A randomized phase III study comparing continuation and discontinuation of PD-1 pathway inhibitors for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (JCOG1701, SAVE study)

The development of PD-1 pathway inhibitors has dramatically altered the treatment of advanced/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer patients. However, the prognostic significance of their ongoing usage is controversial, especially for patients who have not progressed for a period of time. If discontinuation has no negative impact on survival, suspension may reduce side effects from toxicity and help alleviate the economic burdens on health insurance systems and patients. This randomized controlled trial enrolls patients who have responded well to PD-1 pathway inhibitors for >12 months. The aim is to confirm the non-inferiority of discontinuation of PD-1 pathway inhibitors, relative to continuation, in terms of overall survival. A total of 216 patients will be enrolled over 3 years. This trial has been registered in the Japan Registry for Clinical Trials as jRCT1031190032 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/). An ancillary study examining the prognostic and predictive role of circulating tumor DNA using Guardant360® is planned.

The frequency and inter-relationship of PD-L1 expression and tumour mutational burden across multiple types of advanced solid tumours in China

Background

PD-L1 expression and tumour mutational burden (TMB) are both associated with the responses of multiple tumours to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. However, their prevalence and correlations may differ in different types of advanced solid tumours.

Methods

PD-L1 expression, TMB, and PD-1⁺ Tils (tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes) infiltration and their relationships were assessed in 6668 advanced solid tumour specimens across 25 tumour types. CD8⁺ T cell infiltration was analysed in 347 NSCLC samples. The associations of these biomarkers with the therapeutic effect of PD-1 inhibitor were analysed in a cohort of NSCLC samples.

Results

PD-L1 expression levels and TMB in different tumour types varied widely and their relationship was not significantly correlated in most cancer types, with only a small association across all specimens (Spearman R = 0.059). PD-1⁺ Tils infiltration was positively correlated with PD-L1 expression across all samples (Spearman R = 0.3056). However, there is no such correlation between PD-1⁺ Tils infiltration and TMB. In NSCLC samples, CD8⁺ T cell infiltration was correlated with PD-1⁺ Tils infiltration and PD-L1 expression but not with TMB (Spearman R = 0.4117, 0.2045, and 0.0007, respectively). Patients in the CR/PR group (anti-PD-1 therapy) had higher levels of PD-L1 expression, TMB, PD-1⁺ Tils, and CD8⁺ T cell infiltration, and many patients in this group exhibited concomitantly elevated levels of multiple biomarkers.

Conclusions

Our results showed the PD-L1 expression status and TMB in various types of advanced solid tumours in Chinese patients and their relationships with PD-1⁺ Tils and CD8⁺ T cell infiltration, which may inform ICI treatment.

Molecular and Genomic Profiling of Lung Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Position Paper from the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT)

The identification of the optimal cancer treatment has become progressively more intricate for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients due to the multitude of options available. The testing of biomarkers to predict clinical responses to therapies is pivotal to stratify the patients based on the molecular features of their tumors. The number of actionable genetic alterations to be tested is increasing together with the comprehension of the molecular mechanisms underlying tumor growth and development. The possibility of using next generation sequencing-based approaches enhanced the acquisition of genetic data with potential clinical usefulness, and favored the integration of precision medicine in clinical practice. The availability of targeted sequencing panels that cover genetic alterations in hundreds of genes allows the performance of a comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of lung tumors. However, different issues still need to be solved, from the tissue needed for next generation sequencing analysis, to the choice of the test and its interpretation in the clinical context. This position paper from the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) summarizes the results of a discussion from a Precision Medicine Panel meeting on the challenges to bringing CGP and, therefore, precision medicine into the daily clinical practice.

Tumor Mutational Burden and PD-L1 Expression in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Southwestern China

PURPOSE

To explore the impact between the tumor mutational burden (TMB) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on NSCLC in the Yunnan region of southwestern China.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-one NSCLC specimens that were pathologically confirmed were collected at first. The TMB and driver genetic alterations were evaluated accordingly by next-generation sequencing (NGS). Afterwards, clinical parameters and tumor PD-L1 expressions were collected. Finally, the relationship between TMB, PD-L1 expression and clinical outcome was evaluated.

RESULTS

The median TMB was 5 (0.6-49) mutations/Mb by our NGS panel and the majority of patients (63/71, 88.7%) did not receive immunotherapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in TMB-low patients versus TMB-high ones (median 18.0 vs. 9.0 months, hazard ratio = 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.84, p = 0.02) and the cut-off value was 10 mutations/Mb. The overall survival (OS) was longer in TMB-low patients vs. TMB-high ones (median 21.0 vs. 10.0 months, HR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.82, p = 0.02). Notably, our study also found that, excluding the eight patients with immunotherapy, the PFS was longer in patients with TMB-low vs. TMB-high (median 19.0 vs. 8.0 months, HR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.39, p < 0.01) and the OS was longer in TMB-low patients vs. TMB-high (median 21.0 vs 10.0 months, HR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

TMB was a valid and independent prognostic biomarker for NSCLC patients' clinical outcome and comprehensive screening of TMB based on NGS is recommended for individualized treatment strategies in Yunnan population.

The safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Atezolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against PD-L1 capable of enhancing antitumor immune activity, with a demonstrated activity as single agent in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the clinical data emerging from randomized clinical studies with atezolizumab in NSCLC and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), focusing in particular on the efficacy and safety data regarding the combinations of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in the IMpower studies.

EXPERT OPINION

A significant improvement in progression-free survival and in overall survival was observed in IMpower 130 and 150 (NSCLC non-squamous) and 133 (SCLC), with an acceptable safety profile. In particular, the most common immune-related adverse events were rash (18-28% of patients), hypothyroidism (8-15%), hepatitis (5-17%), pneumonitis (2-7%), and colitis (1.5-2.3%). The safety profile of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy was consistent with the known adverse events related to single-agent atezolizumab and no new adverse events were observed. Ongoing studies will evaluate the role of atezolizumab in other settings (adjuvant and neoadjuvant) and in combination with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced NSCLC and the role of predictive factors (B-FAST study).

Identifying optimal first-line interventions for advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma according to PD-L1 expression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis (NMA), based on one phase II and nine phase III studies, involving 6,124 patients with metastatic NSCLC, indirectly compares Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + chemotherapy (ABC), Atezolizumab + chemotherapy (AC), Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (PC), Pembrolizumab alone, Bevacizumab + chemotherapy (BC) and chemotherapy alone. Each of these is recommended as front-line interventions, according to the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for advanced NSCLC without EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement. Studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and abstracts found in oncology articles. Primary endpoints, i.e., progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with corresponding hazard ratios (HR), objective response rates (ORR) and adverse event (AEs) with odds risk (OR) were pooled according to frequentist network meta-analytical techniques. PD-L1 expression thresholds, as well as non-squamous/squamous were used to determine subgroups. Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy appeared superior to Pembrolizumab alone for PD-L1-high (i.e., TPS≥50%) NSCLC patients. BC might also be specifically recommended as an initial first-line treatment for PD-L1-high, non-squamous NSCLC patients, since BC was not inferior to Pembrolizumab alone. PC and ABC might be preferred for NSCLC patients with intermediate PD-L1 (1% ≤PD-L1, TPS<50%) expression. BC can also be tentatively recommended specifically for PD-L1-intermediate, non-squamous NSCLC patients. Combined immunotherapies can all be recommended for PD-L1-negative (i.e., TPS<1%) NSCLC patients, although especially the ABC combination for non-squamous NSCLC patients, which was superior to PC in regards of PFS. However, PC performed comparable to ABC in the whole population and in all subgroup save this one. More predictive biomarkers could be factored into further analyses to help identifying the most effective treatment regimens for specific patient groups.

Top 10 Challenges in Cancer Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy is a validated and critically important approach for treating patients with cancer. Given the vast research and clinical investigation efforts dedicated to advancing both endogenous and synthetic immunotherapy approaches, there is a need to focus on crucial questions and define roadblocks to the basic understanding and clinical progress. Here, we define ten key challenges facing cancer immunotherapy, which range from lack of confidence in translating pre-clinical findings to identifying optimal combinations of immune-based therapies for any given patient. Addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of basic researchers and clinicians, and the focusing of resources to accelerate understanding of the complex interactions between cancer and the immune system and the development of improved treatment options for patients with cancer.