Immune checkpoint inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of older people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is a cancer of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of 71. More than one-third of people diagnosed with lung cancer are over 75 years old. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are special antibodies that target a pathway in the immune system called the programmed cell death 1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway. These antibodies help the immune system fight cancer cells by blocking signals that cancer cells use to avoid being attacked by the immune system. ICIs have changed the treatment of people with lung cancer. In particular, for people with previously-untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current first-line treatment now comprises ICIs plus platinum-based chemotherapy, rather than platinum-based chemotherapy alone, regardless of their PD-L1 expression status. However, as people age, their immune system changes, becoming less effective in its T cell responses. This raises questions about how well ICIs work in older adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab) in treatment-naïve adults aged 65 years and older with advanced NSCLC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other trial registers, and the websites of drug regulators. The latest search date was 23 August 2023. We also checked references and searched abstracts from the meetings of seven cancer organisations from 2019 to August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on the efficacy and safety of adding ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone for people 65 years and older who had not previously been treated. All data emanated from international multicentre studies involving adults with histologically-confirmed advanced NSCLC who had not received any previous systemic anticancer therapy for their advanced disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival and treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 or higher). Our secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, objective response rate, time to response, duration of response, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 primary studies, with a total of 4276 participants, in the review synthesis. We identified nine ongoing studies, and listed one study as 'awaiting classification'. Twelve of the 17 studies included people older than 75 years, accounting for 9% to 13% of their participants. We rated some studies as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from the intended interventions, or measurement of the outcome. The overall GRADE rating for the certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to low because of the risk of bias, imprecision, or inconsistency. People aged 65 years and older The addition of ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy probably increased overall survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.88; 8 studies, 2093 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported data for treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 or higher). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events may not differ between the two treatment groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.32; 1 study, 127 participants; low-certainty evidence). The addition of ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy probably improves progression-free survival (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.68; 7 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People aged 65 to 75 years, inclusive The addition of ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy probably improved overall survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; 6 studies, 1406 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported data for treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 or higher). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events probably increased in people treated with ICIs plus platinum-based chemotherapy compared to those treated with platinum-based chemotherapy alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13; 1 study, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The addition of ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73; 8 studies, 1466 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). People aged 75 years and older There may be no difference in overall survival in people treated with ICIs combined with platinum-based chemotherapy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16; 4 studies, 297 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data on treatment-related adverse events were available in this age group. The effect of combination ICI and platinum-based chemotherapy on progression-free survival is uncertain (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.36; 3 studies, 226 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only three studies assessed the objective response rate. For time to response, duration of response, and health-related quality of life, we do not have any evidence yet.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone, adding ICIs to platinum-based chemotherapy probably leads to higher overall survival and progression-free survival, without an increase in treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 or higher), in people 65 years and older with advanced NSCLC. These data are based on results from studies dominated by participants between 65 and 75 years old. However, the analysis also suggests that the improvements reported in overall survival and progression-free survival may not be seen in people older than 75 years.

Dual blockade immunotherapy targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in lung cancer

Cancer immunotherapies, represented by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), have reshaped the treatment paradigm for both advanced non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer. Programmed death receptor-1/programmed death receptor ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) are some of the most common and promising targets in ICIs. Compared to ICI monotherapy, which occasionally demonstrates treatment resistance and limited efficacy, the dual blockade immunotherapy targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 operates at different stages of T cell activation with synergistically enhancing immune responses against cancer cells. This emerging dual therapy heralds a new direction for cancer immunotherapy, which, however, may increase the risk of drug-related adverse reactions while improving efficacy. Previous clinical trials have explored combination therapy strategy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 agents in lung cancer, yet its efficacy remains to be unclear with the inevitable incidence of immune-related adverse events. The recent advent of bispecific antibodies has made this sort of dual targeting more feasible, aiming to alleviate toxicity without compromising efficacy. Thus, this review highlights the role of dual blockade immunotherapy targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in treating lung cancer, and further elucidates its pre-clinical mechanisms and current advancements in clinical trials. Besides, we also provide novel insights into the potential combinations of dual blockade therapies with other strategies to optimize the future treatment mode for lung cancer.

Advances and challenges of first-line immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: A review

The current use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of lung cancer has dramatically changed the clinical strategy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). As a result of great achievements in clinical trials, 6 programmed death-1 inhibitors (sintilimab, camrelizumab, tislelizumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, and nivolumab), 2 programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors (sugemalimab and atezolizumab), and 1 cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab) have been approved as first-line treatment for mNSCLC by the US Food and Drug Administration. Recently, research on ICIs has shifted from a large number of second-line to first-line settings in clinical trials. Results from first-line trials have shown that almost all driver-negative mNSCLC are treated with ICIs and significantly prolong patient survival; however, the low response rate and adverse reactions to immunotherapy remain to be addressed. Here, we summarize the use of ICIs, including monotherapy and combination therapy, in the first-line treatment of mNSCLC in recent years and discuss the low response rate and adverse reactions of ICIs as well as the challenges and expectations for the first-line treatment of mNSCLC in the future.

Adverse event costs associated with first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: An analysis of clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, have demonstrated substantial survival benefits in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is limited evidence on their relative safety profiles and adverse event (AE)-related cost burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the AE management costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with and without limited chemotherapy with those of chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in a first-line setting among patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: The mean per-patient AE costs were estimated using the incidence of all-cause grade 3/4 AEs with any-grade incidence greater than or equal to 15% and the corresponding costs of AE management in the inpatient setting. AE rates were obtained from individual patient data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA trials for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy and aggregated data from the KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 trials for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and the IMpower130 trial for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy. AE management costs from the third-party payer perspective were estimated based on inpatient medical costs from the 2016 United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. All costs were inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were associated with lower per-patient grade 3/4 AE costs compared with chemotherapy ($1,708 and $624 lower over the treatment course, respectively). Compared with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs in patients with nonsquamous histology (difference: -$4,866) and squamous histology (difference: -$3,795), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with limited chemotherapy also had lower AE costs for both nonsquamous (difference: -$2,800) and squamous (difference: -$2,753) disease. Similarly, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were also associated with lower AE costs ($11,400 and $8,809 lower, respectively) compared with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy among patients with nonsquamous disease. In particular, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without or with limited chemotherapy were associated with much lower AE costs of hematological AEs compared with chemotherapy and other immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatments in combination with a full course of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy was associated with lower AE management costs compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. The AE cost benefits were largely driven by the lower cost burden for hematological AEs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy. DISCLOSURES This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The sponsor was involved in all aspects of the work and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Stenehjem has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Lubinga was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of the study's conduct and holds stock/options. Drs Betts and Wu are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb for this research.

Potential Applications of Nanoparticles in Improving the Outcome of Lung Cancer Treatment

Lung cancer is managed using conventional therapies, including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of both. Each of these therapies has its own limitations, such as the indiscriminate killing of normal as well as cancer cells, the solubility of the chemotherapeutic drugs, rapid clearance of the drugs from circulation before reaching the tumor site, the resistance of cancer cells to radiation, and over-sensitization of normal cells to radiation. Other treatment modalities include gene therapy, immunological checkpoint inhibitors, drug repurposing, and in situ cryo-immune engineering (ICIE) strategy. Nanotechnology has come to the rescue to overcome many shortfalls of conventional therapies. Some of the nano-formulated chemotherapeutic drugs, as well as nanoparticles and nanostructures with surface modifications, have been used for effective cancer cell killing and radio sensitization, respectively. Nano-enabled drug delivery systems act as cargo to deliver the sensitizer molecules specifically to the tumor cells, thereby enabling the radiation therapy to be more effective. In this review, we have discussed the different conventional chemotherapies and radiation therapies used for inhibiting lung cancer. We have also discussed the improvement in chemotherapy and radiation sensitization using nanoparticles.

Fibroblast Growth Factor 11 Enables Tumor Cell Immune Escape by Promoting T Cell Exhaustion and Predicts Poor Prognosis in Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma

Fibroblast growth factor 11 (FGF11) accelerates tumor proliferation in a variety of cancer types. This study aimed to examine the link between FGF11 and the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma. FGF11 was searched in the Tumor Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and ImmProt databases. The link between FGF11 and lung cancer clinical data was investigated using TCGA and Kaplan-Meier (KM)-plotter databases, and we developed a prediction model. Putative mechanisms of action were investigated using Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG enrichment analyses. The GeneMANIA and STRING databases were used to search for genes that interact with FGF11, and the Tumor Immune Estimation Resource (TIMER) database was used to discover connections between FGF11 and immune cells, as well as any correlations with immune-related genes. We found that FGF11 expression was higher in the lung adenocarcinoma tissue than in the paracancerous tissue, and patients with high FGF11 expression had a lower overall survival, progression-free survival, and disease specific survival rate than those with low FGF11 expression. The expression of FGF11 was inversely linked to six types of infiltrating immune cells in the TIMER database and was associated with EGFR, VEGFA, BRAF, and MET expressions. The FGF11 gene is negatively correlated with the expression of most immune cells, mainly with various functional T cells including Th1, Th1-like, Treg, and Resting Treg characterization genes. These results indicate that FGF11 has the potential to be a new lung adenocarcinoma biomarker. It increases tumor cell immune escape by boosting T cell exhaustion in the tumor microenvironment, contributing to the poor prognosis of the patients with lung adenocarcinoma. These results provide incentive to further research FGF11 as a possible biomarker and drug target for patients with lung adenocarcinoma.

The Role of Immunotherapy or Immuno-Chemotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Many new treatment modalities for non-small-cell carcinoma (NSCLC) have been described in the last two decades. Surgical resections remain the gold standard for early stages and may be considered for locally advanced tumors. Medical treatment has changed drastically in recent years, especially for advanced stages, for which the development of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy significantly increased survival and quality of life. The addition of radical surgical resection following immunotherapy or immuno-chemotherapy is feasible and safe with low surgical-related mortality and morbidity in selected patients with initially unresectable NSCLC. However, data from multiple ongoing trials with overall survival as the primary endpoint should be awaited before this strategy is introduced into the standard of care.

Apoptosis: a Janus bifrons in T-cell immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer. In particular, immune checkpoint blockade, bispecific antibodies, and adoptive T-cell transfer have yielded unprecedented clinical results in hematological malignancies and solid cancers. While T cell-based immunotherapies have multiple mechanisms of action, their ultimate goal is achieving apoptosis of cancer cells. Unsurprisingly, apoptosis evasion is a key feature of cancer biology. Therefore, enhancing cancer cells' sensitivity to apoptosis represents a key strategy to improve clinical outcomes in cancer immunotherapy. Indeed, cancer cells are characterized by several intrinsic mechanisms to resist apoptosis, in addition to features to promote apoptosis in T cells and evade therapy. However, apoptosis is double-faced: when it occurs in T cells, it represents a critical mechanism of failure for immunotherapies. This review will summarize the recent efforts to enhance T cell-based immunotherapies by increasing apoptosis susceptibility in cancer cells and discuss the role of apoptosis in modulating the survival of cytotoxic T lymphocytes in the tumor microenvironment and potential strategies to overcome this issue.

Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 antibodies ± other therapies in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) plus cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) antibodies ± other therapies in patients with advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

In accordance with the retrieval strategy, we searched electronic databases for randomised controlled trials testing PD-1/PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 antibodies in patients with lung cancer; RR (for objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs)) from individual studies were calculated and pooled by using random-effects models or fixed-effects models; heterogeneity and publication bias analyses were also performed, using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 15.1 for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We included six studies. Four different immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, tremelimumab) were used. Dual checkpoint inhibitors ± other therapies for advanced lung cancer showed significant improvements in ORR (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98; p=0.007), OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.83; p<0.00001), and PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82; p<0.00001). The subgroup analyses were consistent with the pooled results. The PD-L1 ≥1% (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; p<0.0001) subgroup differences indicated a statistically significant subgroup effect, but the PD-L1 <1% subgroup (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05; p=0.15) was not statistically significant. The incidence of adverse events (grade ≥3) was lower than that of the control group (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; p=0.09), but was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors ± other therapies can improve the ORR, OS and PFS of patients with advanced or metastatic lung cancer, but the incidence of adverse reactions is high although generally tolerable.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42020149216.

Malignant neoplasm of the bronchi and lung: Russian clinical guidelines

удалить

Therapy for Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Without Driver Alterations: ASCO Living Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without driver alterations.

METHODS

ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021.

RESULTS

This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.

Current Landscape of Therapeutic Resistance in Lung Cancer and Promising Strategies to Overcome Resistance

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide with a 5-year survival rate of less than 18%. Current treatment modalities include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Despite advances in therapeutic options, resistance to therapy remains a major obstacle to the effectiveness of long-term treatment, eventually leading to therapeutic insensitivity, poor progression-free survival, and disease relapse. Resistance mechanisms stem from genetic mutations and/or epigenetic changes, unregulated drug efflux, tumor hypoxia, alterations in the tumor microenvironment, and several other cellular and molecular alterations. A better understanding of these mechanisms is crucial for targeting factors involved in therapeutic resistance, establishing novel antitumor targets, and developing therapeutic strategies to resensitize cancer cells towards treatment. In this review, we summarize diverse mechanisms driving resistance to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, and promising strategies to help overcome this therapeutic resistance.

Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) for Patients With Lung Cancer and Brain Metastases: Initial Report of the Small Cell Lung Cancer GPA and Update of the Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer GPA Including the Effect of Programmed Death Ligand 1 and Other Prognostic Factors

PURPOSE

Patients with lung cancer and brain metastases represent a markedly heterogeneous population. Accurate prognosis is essential to optimally individualize care. In prior publications, we described the graded prognostic assessment (GPA), but a GPA for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has never been reported, and in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the effect of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) was unknown. The 3-fold purpose of this work is to provide the initial report of an SCLC GPA, to evaluate the effect of PD-L1 on survival in patients with NSCLC, and to update the Lung GPA accordingly.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A multivariable analysis of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival was performed on 4183 patients with lung cancer (3002 adenocarcinoma, 611 nonadenocarcinoma, 570 SCLC) with newly diagnosed brain metastases between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using a multi-institutional retrospective database. Significant variables were used to update the Lung GPA.

RESULTS

Overall median survival for lung adenocarcinoma, SCLC, and nonadenocarcinoma was 17, 10, and 8 months, respectively, but varied widely by GPA from 2 to 52 months. In SCLC, the significant prognostic factors were age, performance status, extracranial metastases, and number of brain metastases. In NSCLC, the distribution of molecular markers among patients with lung adenocarcinoma and known primary tumor molecular status revealed alterations/expression in PD-L1 50% to 100%, PD-L1 1% to 49%, epidermal growth factor receptor, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase in 32%, 31%, 30%, and 7%, respectively. Median survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma and brain metastases with 0, 1% to 49%, and ≥50% PD-L1 expression was 17, 19, and 24 months, respectively (P < .01), confirming PD-L1 is a prognostic factor. Previously identified prognostic factors for NSCLC (epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase status, performance status, age, number of brain metastases, and extracranial metastases) were reaffirmed. These factors were incorporated into the updated Lung GPA with robust separation between subgroups for all histologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival for patients with lung cancer and brain metastases has improved but varies widely. The initial report of a GPA for SCLC is presented. For patients with NSCLC-adenocarcinoma and brain metastases, PD-L1 is a newly identified significant prognostic factor, and the previously identified factors were reaffirmed. The updated indices establish unique criteria for SCLC, NSCLC-nonadenocarcinoma, and NSCLC-adenocarcinoma (incorporating PD-L1). The updated Lung GPA, available for free at brainmetgpa.com, provides an accurate tool to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials.

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.

The Strategies and Mechanisms of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Brain Metastases in NSCLC

Brain metastases are more and more common among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TKI therapy could provide ideal outcomes for patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK mutations. For wild-type patients, however, survival is poor because there are few effective treatments other than radiotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the management of advanced NSCLC. However, the exclusion of patients with active brain metastasis (BM) from most ICI trials precludes the generalization of results. Accordingly, a variety of appropriate real-world studies and clinical trials are being developed to evaluate tumor response. Increasingly encouraging results have suggested that ICIs could be active in the central nervous system (CNS) in select patients with high PD-L1 expression and low CNS disease burden. With the extensive use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with BM, many important questions have emerged concerning issues such as the clinical response to a single ICI, use of ICIs combined with chemotherapy or radiation, the biological mechanism and appropriate sequencing of local and systemic therapy combinations, and safety and toxicity. The present review summarizes the advances in systemic ICIs for the treatment of NSCLC patients with BM, discusses factors associated with efficacy and toxicity, and explores future directions.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of lung cancer and mesothelioma

Immunotherapy has transformed lung cancer care in recent years. In addition to providing durable responses and prolonged survival outcomes for a subset of patients with heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)— either as monotherapy or in combination with other ICIs or chemotherapy—have demonstrated benefits in first-line therapy for advanced disease, the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, as well as in additional thoracic malignancies such as small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and mesothelioma. Challenging questions remain, however, on topics including therapy selection, appropriate biomarker-based identification of patients who may derive benefit, the use of immunotherapy in special populations such as people with autoimmune disorders, and toxicity management. Patient and caregiver education and support for quality of life (QOL) is also important to attain maximal benefit with immunotherapy. To provide guidance to the oncology community on these and other important concerns, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). This CPG represents an update to SITC’s 2018 publication on immunotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC, and is expanded to include recommendations on SCLC and mesothelioma. The Expert Panel drew on the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for lung cancer and mesothelioma, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events, and patient QOL considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers using immunotherapy to treat patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Historically, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been regarded as a nonimmunogenic tumor; however, recent studies have shown that NSCLCs are among the most responsive cancers to monoclonal antibody immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). ICIs have dramatically improved clinical outcomes for a subset of patients (∼20%) with locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC, and they have also demonstrated promise as neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage resectable disease. Nevertheless, the majority of patients with NSCLC are refractory to ICIs for reasons that are poorly understood. Thus, major questions are: how do we initially identify the patients most likely to derive significant clinical benefit from these therapies; how can we increase the number of patients benefiting; what are the mechanisms of primary and acquired resistance to immune-based therapies; are there additional immune checkpoints besides PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 that can be targeted to provide greater clinical benefit to patients; and how do we best combine ICI therapy with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy? To answer these questions, we need to deploy the latest technologies to study tumors and their microenvironment and how they interact with components of the innate and adaptive immune systems. There is also a need for new preclinical model systems to investigate the molecular mechanisms of resistance to treatment and identify novel therapeutic targets. Recent advances in technology are beginning to shed new light on the immune landscape of NSCLC that may uncover biomarkers of response and maximize the clinical benefit of immune-based therapies. Identification of the mechanisms of resistance should lead to the identification of novel targets and the generation of new therapeutic strategies that improve outcomes for a greater number of patients. In the sections below, we discuss the results of studies examining the immune microenvironment in NSCLC, summarize the clinical experience with immunotherapy for NSCLC, and review candidate biomarkers of response to these agents in NSCLC.

What Is Long-Term Survival and Which First-Line Immunotherapy Brings Long-Term Survival for Advanced Wild-Type Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis Based on Integrated Analysis

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significantly improved survival for advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer, but there is no direct comparison to confirm which first-line treatment may lead to the longest overall survival. What qualifies as long-term survival (LS) is even unclear.

Methods

By searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2005 to December 2020, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line ICI-containing treatments to perform an integrated analysis (IA) to determine the criterion of LS and then screened regimens with LS for network meta-analysis (NMA). The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), 1-year survival rate (1ySR), and 2-year survival rate (2ySR); those for IA were the pooled mOS (POS), 1ySR (P1SR), and 2ySR (P2SR).

Results

By IA of 16 first-line ICIs from 20 RCTs, the POS was 16.20 (95% CI 14.79–17.60) months, with P1SR of 63% (95% CI 59–66%) and P2SR of 37% (33–41%). Thus, we defined LS as mOS ≥ POS (16.20 m) for regimens and screened for RCTs with outcomes meeting this criterion. Eleven ICI-based regimens can bring LS for the overall population, among which ICI with bevacizumab and chemotherapy achieved the longest POS of 19.50 m (16.90–22.10 m) and the highest P1SR (74%, 61%–87%) and P2SR (49%, 38%–61%). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy ranked first in mOS and 1ySR, while atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy ranked first in 2ySR.

Conclusions

Through the IA of first-line treatment regimens, a POS of 16.20 m can be determined as the LS standard. Further considering 1ySR and 2ySR, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab and chemotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy are likely to bring the longest LS in the overall population, while single ICI may be adequate for patients with a high PD-L1 expression. ICIs with bevacizumab and chemotherapy may be the best combination for LS for its further advantage over time.

Patient and Caregiver Preferences for First-Line Treatments of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

The approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinomas (mNSCLC) treatment has presented more care options. Therefore, it is important to identify the benefit-risk trade-offs patients and caregivers are willing to make among potential treatment options. This study quantified the preferences of patients and caregivers for attributes of mNSCLC treatment.

METHODS

Patients with mNSCLC and caregivers completed an online survey assessing preferences using a discrete choice experiment. Respondents chose between hypothetical treatment profiles, with varying levels for 7 attributes associated with first-line treatment, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, select adverse events (AEs), and regimen (caregivers). Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to estimate attribute-level preference weights.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 308) and caregivers (n = 166) most valued increasing OS from 11 to 30 months, followed by decreasing the risk of a serious AE (grade 3/4) that may lead to hospitalization from 70% to 18%. These attributes were over twice as important to both sets of respondents as the other attributes measured. Patients and caregivers would accept increases in the risks of a serious AE (grade 3/4) from 18% to 70% and all grades nausea from 10% to 69% if OS increased by 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively. The least valued attributes were all grades of pneumonitis (patients) and all grades of skin rash (caregivers).

CONCLUSION

Patients and caregivers are willing to make trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity and may require up to 1.5 years of increased OS to accept a higher risk of AEs. These results can provide guidance to oncologists when engaging in shared-decision making discussions.

Defining unique clinical hallmarks for immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies

IntroductionImmuno-oncology therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), have transformed cancer care and have brought into question whether classic oncology efficacy assessments adequately describe the distinctive responses observed with these agents. With more ICI-based therapies being approved across multiple tumor types, it is essential to define unique clinical hallmarks of these agents and their associated assessments to better reflect the therapeutic impact for both patients and physicians. Long-term survival and objective responses, such as depth and durability of responses, treatment-free survival, efficacy in brain metastases, improved health-related quality of life, and unique safety profiles, are among the hallmarks that have emerged for ICI therapies. An established clinical hallmark is a sustained long-term survival, as evidenced by a delayed separation of Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and a plateau at ~3 years. Combination ICI therapies provide the opportunity to raise this plateau, thereby affording durable survival benefits to more patients. Deepening of responses over time is a unique clinical ICI hallmark, with patients responding long term and with more durable complete responses. Depth of response has demonstrated prognostic value for long-term survival in some cancers, and several ICI studies have shown sustained responses even after discontinuing ICI therapy, offering the potential for treatment-free intervals. Although clinical evidence supporting efficacy in brain metastases is limited, favorable ICI intracranial responses have been seen that are largely concordant with extracranial responses. While patient outcomes can be significantly improved with ICIs, they are associated with unique immune-mediated adverse reactions (IMARs), including delayed ICI toxicities, and may require multidisciplinary management for optimal care. Interestingly, patients discontinuing ICIs for IMARs may maintain responses similar to patients who did not discontinue for an IMAR, whether they restarted ICI therapy or not.ConclusionHerein, we comprehensively review and refine the clinical hallmarks uniquely associated with ICI therapies, which not only will rejuvenate our assessment of ICI therapeutic outcomes but also will lead to a greater appreciation of the effectiveness of ICI therapies.

Efficacy and Safety of Larotrectinib in Patients With Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase Fusion-Positive Lung Cancers

PURPOSE

Larotrectinib is a highly selective and CNS-active tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy across TRK fusion-positive cancers, regardless of the tumor type. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of larotrectinib in patients with TRK fusion-positive lung cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from two global, multicenter, registrational clinical trials of patients treated with larotrectinib were analyzed: a phase II adult and young adult basket trial (NCT02576431) and a phase I adult trial (NCT02122913). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

By July 20, 2020, 20 patients with TRK fusion-positive lung cancer had been treated. The ORR by investigator assessment among 15 evaluable patients was 73% (95% CI, 45 to 92); one (7%) patient had a complete response, 10 (67%) had a partial response, three (20%) had stable disease, and one (7%) had progressive disease as best response. The median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival were 33.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 33.9), 35.4 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 35.4), and 40.7 months (95% CI, 17.2 to not estimable), respectively. Among patients with baseline CNS metastases, the ORR was 63% (95% CI, 25 to 91). Adverse events were mainly grade 1 or 2.

CONCLUSION

Larotrectinib is highly active with rapid and durable responses, extended survival benefit, and a favorable long-term safety profile in patients with advanced lung cancer harboring NTRK gene fusions, including those with CNS metastases. These findings support routine testing for NTRK fusions in patients with lung cancer.

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in thoracic malignancies

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has rapidly transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple cancer types, including thoracic malignancies. In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ICIs have shifted treatment paradigm and improved overall survival reaching almost one-third of patients alive at 5 years. ICIs therapies have also modified the therapeutic strategy in first-line setting in metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients as well as in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) improving the overall survival compared with standard treatment. This phenomenon is of huge relevance as both SCLC and MPM were considered orphan diseases without any significant improvement in the therapeutic strategy in the first-line setting during the last 15 years. In this review, we aim to review the efficacy of ICI in thoracic malignancies either in monotherapy or in combination, according to predictive biomarkers, and to the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency approvals of treatment strategies. We address the efficacy of these agents, especially in NSCLC according to PD-L1 expression and histologic subtype.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Colitis: From Mechanism to Management

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as one of the innovative types of immunotherapies, including programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, have obtained unprecedented benefit in multiple malignancies. However, the immune response activation in the body organs could arise immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Checkpoint inhibitor colitis (CIC) is the most widely reported irAEs. However, some obscure problems, such as the mechanism concerning gut microbiota, the confusing differential diagnosis with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the optimal steroid schedule, the reintroduction of ICIs, and the controversial prognosis features, influence the deep understanding and precise diagnosis and management of CIC. Herein, we based on these problems and comprehensively summarized the relevant studies of CIC in patients with NSCLC, further discussing the future research direction of this specific pattern of irAEs.

The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the rational choice

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide and the leading cause of death among cancers. The progressive approvals of immunotherapy as first-line treatment options have helped improve cancer prognosis. However, longer follow-up has confirmed the possibility of acquired resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which can lead to late relapses. Chemotherapy can act as a priming therapy to increase a tumor's response to immunotherapy. We aim through this review to explain the mechanism behind ICI resistance and the value of chemotherapy in escaping this resistance. Finally, all US FDA approvals regarding the management of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer using a combination of ICIs and chemotherapy are summarized.

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: rationale, recent advances and future perspectives

Lung cancer, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being the major type, is the second most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Immunotherapy, represented by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has been one of the greatest advances in recent years for the treatment of solid tumors including NSCLC. However, not all NSCLC patients experience an effective response to immunotherapy with the established selection criteria of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). Furthermore, a considerable proportion of patients experience unconventional responses, including pseudoprogression or hyperprogressive disease (HPD), immune-related toxicities, and primary or acquired resistance during the immunotherapy process. To better understand the immune response in NSCLC and provide reference for clinical decision-making, we herein review the rationale and recent advances in using immunotherapy to treat NSCLC. Moreover, we discuss the current challenges and future strategies of this approach to improve its efficacy and safety in treating NSCLC.

Which treatment after first line therapy in NSCLC patients without genetic alterations in the era of immunotherapy?

Cancer immunotherapy has produced an unprecedented durable response rate, thus shifting from traditional doublet chemotherapy to immunotherapy-based treatments with and without chemotherapy as the first line strategies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients without a molecular driver. However, the majority of patients do not benefit from the treatment or may relapse after a period of response. As few treatment options are available after failure of cancer immunotherapy, including the combination of chemotherapy and anti-angiogenic drugs, a better understanding of the mechanisms limiting cancer immunotherapy may be of help in the definition of the best second line. Whereas only retrospective data support an immunotherapy rechallenge approach, new combination strategies including immunotherapy and cell-signaling inhibitors or double immunotherapy represent the newest and most promising strategy to overcome primary or acquired resistance to first line immunotherapy.

Advances in systemic therapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. Despite numerous advances in treatments over the past decade, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an incurable disease for most patients. The optimal treatment for all patients with locally advanced, but surgically resectable, NSCLC contains at least chemoradiation. Trimodality treatment with surgical resection has been a subject of debate for decades. For patients with unresectable or inoperable locally advanced disease, the incorporation of immunotherapy consolidation after chemoradiation has defined a new standard of care. For decades, the standard of care treatment for advanced stage NSCLC included only cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, with the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the landscape of treatment has rapidly evolved. This review discusses the integration of these innovative therapies in the management of patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC.

Paradigm shift in the management of metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer mortality in the United States. The use of precision medicine in the past 10 years has significantly changed the therapeutic landscape of lung cancer. Management of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has transitioned from a chemotherapeutic approach to targeted treatments and immunotherapeutic agents. Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been approved for patients with targeted mutations and patients who do not have driver mutations; immunotherapy has been recently approved as frontline therapy, which has resulted in marked improvement in overall survival and added a new tool in our armamentarium.

AIMS

The purpose of this review is to highlight recent advancements in diagnostic approach and management strategies in patients with metastatic NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted on Medline (via PubMed) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines using the keywords "precision diagnosis," "advanced non-small cell lung cancer," "target therapies," and "immunotherapy."

CONCLUSION

The use of next-generation sequencing has significantly changed our understanding of molecular oncogenic mechanisms of lung cancer. These advancements have created a paradigm shift in the treatment strategies of metastatic lung cancer from primarily chemotherapeutic approach to increasing use of targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) leading to better survival rates and lesser toxicity.

PET/CT imaging for evaluation of multimodal treatment efficacy and toxicity in advanced NSCLC-current state and future directions

PURPOSE

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of advanced NSCLC, leading to a string of approvals in recent years. Herein, a narrative review on the role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) in the ever-evolving treatment landscape of advanced NSCLC is presented.

METHODS

This comprehensive review will begin with an introduction into current treatment paradigms incorporating ICIs; the evolution of CT-based criteria; moving onto novel phenomena observed with ICIs and the current state of hybrid imaging for diagnosis, treatment planning, evaluation of treatment efficacy and toxicity in advanced NSCLC, also taking into consideration its limitations and future directions.

CONCLUSIONS

The advent of ICIs marks the dawn of a new era bringing forth new challenges particularly vis-à-vis treatment response assessment and observation of novel phenomena accompanied by novel systemic side effects. While FDG PET/CT is widely adopted for tumor volume delineation in locally advanced disease, response assessment to immunotherapy based on current criteria is of high clinical value but has its inherent limitations. In recent years, modifications of established (PET)/CT criteria have been proposed to provide more refined approaches towards response evaluation. Not only a comprehensive inclusion of PET-based response criteria in prospective randomized controlled trials, but also a general harmonization within the variety of PET-based response criteria is pertinent to strengthen clinical implementation and widespread use of hybrid imaging for response assessment in NSCLC.

Systemic Therapy for Lung Cancer Brain Metastases

OPINION STATEMENT

Systemic therapy for brain metastases (BM) is quickly moving from conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy toward targeted therapies, that allow a disruption of driver molecular pathways. The discovery of actionable driver mutations has led to the development of an impressive number of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, anaplastic-lymphoma-kinase (ALK) rearrangements, and other rare molecular alterations in patients bearing metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the brain, with remarkable results in terms of intracranial disease control and overall survival. Moreover, these drugs may delay the use of local therapies, such as stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). New drugs with higher molecular specificity and ability to cross the CNS barriers (BBB, BTB and blood-CSF) are being developed. Two major issues are related to targeted therapies. First, the emergence of a resistance is a common event, and a deeper understanding of molecular pathways that are involved is critical for the successful development of effective new targeted agents. Second, an early detection of tumor progression is of utmost importance to avoid the prolongation of an ineffective therapy while changing to another drug. In order to monitor over time the treatment to targeted therapies, liquid biopsy, that allows the detection in biofluids of either circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or exosomes, is increasingly employed in clinical trials: with respect to BM the monitoring of both blood and CSF is necessary. Also, radiomics is being developed to predict the mutational status of the BM on MRI.For patients without druggable mutations or who do not respond to targeted agents, immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is increasingly employed, alone or in combination with radiotherapy. Pseudoprogression after immunotherapy alone maybe a challenge for several months after the start of treatment, and the same is true for radionecrosis after the combination of immunotherapy and SRS. In this regard, the value of advanced MRI techniques and PET imaging for a better distinction of pseudoprogression/radionecrosis and true tumor progression is promising, but needs validation in large prospective datasets. Last, a new frontier in the near future will be chemoprevention (primary and secondary), but we need to identify among solid tumors those subgroups of patients with a higher risk of relapsing into the brain and novel drugs, active on either neoplastic or normal cells of the microenvironment, that are cooperating in the invasion of brain tissue.

Pharmacology-based ranking of anti-cancer drugs to guide clinical development of cancer immunotherapy combinations

The success of antibodies targeting Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and its ligand L1 (PD-L1) in cancer treatment and the need for improving response rates has led to an increased demand for the development of combination therapies with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 blockers as a backbone. As more and more drugs with translational potential are identified, the number of clinical trials evaluating combinations has increased considerably and the demand to prioritize combinations having potential for success over the ones that are unlikely to be successful is rising. This review aims to address the unmet need to prioritize cancer immunotherapy combinations through comprehensive search of potential drugs and ranking them based on their mechanism of action, clinical efficacy and safety. As lung cancer is one of the most frequently studied cancer types, combinations that showed potential for the treatment of lung cancer were prioritized. A literature search was performed to identify drugs with potential in combination with PD-1/PD-L1 blockers and the drugs were ranked based on their mechanism of action and known clinical efficacy. Nineteen drugs or drug classes were identified from an internal list of lead molecules and were scored for their clinical potential. Efficacy and safety data from pivotal studies was summarized for the selected drugs. Further, overlap of mechanisms of action and adverse events was visualized using a heat map illustration to help screen drugs for combinations. The quantitative scoring methodology provided in this review could serve as a template for preliminary ranking of novel combinations.

Early discontinuation of induction therapy in chemoimmunotherapy as an effective alternative to the standard regimen in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate whether induction chemotherapy with less than four courses is as effective as induction chemotherapy with more than four courses in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 249 patients with NSCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy at 12 centers in Japan between January and December 2019. The patient group that completed less than four courses owing to adverse events (AEs), and received subsequent maintenance therapy was compared to the group that received at least four courses of induction chemotherapy followed by maintenance therapy.

RESULTS

On univariate and multivariate analyses, the patient group that transitioned to maintenance therapy after completing less than four courses of induction chemotherapy had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than those who completed at least four courses (hazard ratio [HR] 2.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.38-3.37, p < 0.001 and HR 2.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.40-3.84, p = 0.001, respectively). There was no obvious difference in PFS between the group in which induction chemotherapy ended in two or three courses leading to partial or complete response, and the group that continued at least four courses of induction chemotherapy (log-rank test p = 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Treatment efficacy may be maintained if induction chemotherapy is completed in less than four courses owing to development of AEs, and is administered for more than two courses with partial or complete response; efficacy is maintained even on transitioning to maintenance therapy.

Impact of Smoking History on Response to Immunotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of smoking history on the clinical benefit of immunotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Twenty-three randomized clinical trials and seven real-world studies were included in this meta-analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and odds ratios for the overall response rate (ORR) were extracted. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was applied to obtain pooled estimates.

Results

Data from 16 high-quality trials involving 10,643 NSCLC patients receiving either immunotherapy or chemotherapy/placebo enabled direct comparison of the survival impact of smoking. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA-4 immunotherapy was found to significantly prolong OS and PFS as compared to chemotherapy/placebo in smokers (HR for OS, 0.76 [0.69-0.83], P<0.00001; HR for PFS, 0.65 [0.56-0.75], P<0.00001), and these trends were less or not significant in non-smokers (HR for OS, 0.91 [0.78-1.06], P=0.25; HR for PFS, 0.68 [0.45-1.03], P=0.07). Consistent results were obtained for the first-line or second/third-line use of immunotherapy and for non-squamous NSCLC patients only. Furthermore, the data from 7 trials and 7 real-world studies involving 4,777 patients receiving immunotherapy allowed direct comparison of therapeutic outcomes between smokers and non-smokers. Prolonged OS (HR 0.86 [0.75-0.99], P=0.04) and PFS (HR 0.69 [0.60-0.81], P<0.0001) and a higher response rate (ORR 1.20 [0.94-1.53], P=0.15) were observed in smokers compared to non-smokers receiving immunotherapy.

Conclusions

Immunotherapy was found to have a greater benefit in NSCLC patients with a smoking history than in those who had never smoked.

Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitor versus chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy and tolerability between antiprogrammed cell death (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) + anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) treatment and chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched for potential articles. The fixed-effect model or random-effect model was adopted for pooled analysis based on the I2 and P-value.

RESULTS

Six articles with 1338 patients were identified and subjected to meta-analysis. Compared with chemotherapy, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 treatment could significantly improve the overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-0.84, P = .21) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.71-0.83, P = .30) of advanced lung cancer patients. Moreover, there was no obvious difference in the incidence of 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs) serious adverse reactions (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.66-2.74, P < .00001) between the 2 treatment groups, but the incidence rates of AEs leading to discontinuation (HR = 2.56, 95%CI: 1.53-4.30, P < .00001) and AEs leading to death (HR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.21-3.63, P = .20) were higher. Furthermore, no remarkable differences in objective response rate (HR = 1.31, 95%CI: 0.97-1.77, P = .02) were observed between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis revealed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitor could markedly improve the endpoint outcomes of patients compared with chemotherapy alone, and did not significantly increase the serious adverse reactions. Thus, it can serve as a new treatment strategy for advanced lung cancer.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Challenge and Improvement of Immune Drug Resistance

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the world. At present, immunotherapy has made a great breakthrough in lung cancer treatment. A variety of immune checkpoint inhibitors have been applied into clinical practice, including antibodies targeting the programmed cell death-1, programmed cell death-ligand 1, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. However, in the actual clinical process, about 30%-50% of patients still do not receive long-term benefits. Abnormal antigen presentation, functional gene mutation, tumor microenvironment, and other factors can lead to primary or secondary resistance. In this paper, we reviewed the immune mechanism of immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance, various combination strategies, and prediction of biomarkers to overcome resistance in order to accurately screen out the advantageous population, expand the beneficiary population, and enable precise and individualized medicine.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Single and Double Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based First-Line Treatments for Advanced Driver-Gene Wild-Type Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival for advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) significantly, but few studies compared single ICI (SICI)-based treatments and double ICIs (DICI)-based treatments. We summarized the general efficacy of ICI-related treatments, compared the efficacy and safety of SICI-based [programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors ± chemotherapy (CT)] and DICI-based (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors+CTLA-4 inhibitors ± chemotherapy) treatments vs. CT in the first-line treatment.

Methods

We included phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV driver-gene wild-type NSCLC who received first-line ICI-related therapy in at least one arm. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2020. This network meta-analysis was performed in a Bayesian framework using GEMTC and JAGS package in R.3.6.1. The research was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020184534).

Results

Twenty RCTs were involved, including 13,032 patients and 17 treatment regimens. The results showed that ICI-based therapies could provide a pooled median overall survival (mOS) (POS) of 15.79 (95% CI: 14.85-16.73) months, and there were no significant differences in OS, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs) between DICI-based treatments (POS: 14.81, 12.11-17.52 months) and SICI-based treatments (POS: 16.17, 14.59-17.74 months) in overall patients. However, DICI-based treatments had significantly prolonged the OS over SICI-based treatments in squamous and PD-L1 <1% subgroups. The ranking of OS benefit by Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) spectrum showed that DICI+chemotherapy ranked first for overall population and subgroups including squamous, non-squamous, any level of PD-L1 expression, smoking, male, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) = 0/1, age < 65/≥65 while SICI+CT for low tumor mutation burden (TMB), non-smoking, and female subgroups, and DICI for high TMB subgroups.

Conclusions

In the first-line therapy for advanced wild-type NSCLC, both SICI- and DICI-based treatments could bring significant overall advantages over chemotherapy, with comparable outcomes of efficacy and ≥3AEs. DICI-based treatments were more effective than SICI-based treatments in squamous and PD-L1 <1% subgroups. For most populations, DICI+chemotherapy could be the best choice with a survival benefit, while SICI+chemotherapy has established its position actually.

Systematic Review Registration

[PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020184534].

A Phase Ib Open-Label, Multicenter Study of Inhaled DV281, a TLR9 Agonist, in Combination with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Although PD-(L)1 inhibitors have shown efficacy in advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), many patients do not respond to this treatment and more effective combinations with acceptable toxicities are needed. To assess the potential benefit of combining localized innate immune stimulation with checkpoint blockade, the TLR9 agonist DV281 was combined with nivolumab in a phase Ib study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients after one or two prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled in a dose-escalation study with a 3+3 design. DV281 was administered via inhalation in five dose cohorts at 1 to 25 mg; nivolumab 240 mg was administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and response to treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled. Baseline programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was present in 16 patients (61.5%); 21 (80.7%) had received previous anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Thirteen patients (50%) had stable disease, nine (34.6%) had progressive disease, and four (15.4%) were not evaluable. Median duration of disease control was 124 days. Adverse events were seen in 16 patients (61.5%), mostly grade 1/2 chills, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, diarrhea, and rash; there was only one grade 3 adverse event (dyspnea). Pharmacodynamic assessment, measured by IFN- inducible gene expression, showed target engagement in all dose cohorts. Systemic pharmacodynamic responses plateaued in the 2 highest dose cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

DV281 with nivolumab was well tolerated with target engagement observed at every dose. Pharmacodynamic advantages at doses above 10 mg were unclear. The long duration of disease control in 50% of patients suggests clinically relevant activity in this population of heavily pretreated patients.

Five-Year Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With PD-L1 Tumor Proportion Score ≥ 50

PURPOSE

We report the first 5-year follow-up of any first-line phase III immunotherapy trial for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). KEYNOTE-024 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02142738) is an open-label, randomized controlled trial of pembrolizumab compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated NSCLC with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score of at least 50% and no sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations. Previous analyses showed pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab (200 mg once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles) or platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients in the chemotherapy group with progressive disease could cross over to pembrolizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival; OS was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned: 154 to pembrolizumab and 151 to chemotherapy. Median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff (June 1, 2020) was 59.9 (55.1-68.4) months. Among patients initially assigned to chemotherapy, 99 received subsequent anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy, representing a 66.0% effective crossover rate. Median OS was 26.3 months (95% CI, 18.3 to 40.4) for pembrolizumab and 13.4 months (9.4-18.3) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.81). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 5-year OS rate were 31.9% for the pembrolizumab group and 16.3% for the chemotherapy group. Thirty-nine patients received 35 cycles (ie, approximately 2 years) of pembrolizumab, 82.1% of whom were still alive at data cutoff (approximately 5 years). Toxicity did not increase with longer treatment exposure.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab provides a durable, clinically meaningful long-term OS benefit versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of at least 50%.

Advancing to the era of cancer immunotherapy

Cancer greatly affects the quality of life of humans worldwide and the number of patients suffering from it is continuously increasing. Over the last century, numerous treatments have been developed to improve the survival of cancer patients but substantial progress still needs to be made before cancer can be truly cured. In recent years, antitumor immunity has become the most debated topic in cancer research and the booming development of immunotherapy has led to a new epoch in cancer therapy. In this review, we describe the relationships between tumors and the immune system, and the rise of immunotherapy. Then, we summarize the characteristics of tumor‐associated immunity and immunotherapeutic strategies with various molecular mechanisms by showing the typical immune molecules whose antibodies are broadly used in the clinic and those that are still under investigation. We also discuss important elements from individual cells to the whole human body, including cellular mutations and modulation, metabolic reprogramming, the microbiome, and the immune contexture. In addition, we also present new observations and technical advancements of both diagnostic and therapeutic methods aimed at cancer immunotherapy. Lastly, we discuss the controversies and challenges that negatively impact patient outcomes.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibition for Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown important but variable efficacy in mesothelioma despite a lack of strong biological rationale. Initial trials assessed ICI monotherapy in patients with relapsed mesothelioma, with objective response rates (ORR) between 4.5 and 29%, median progression-free survival (PFS) between 2.5-6.2 months, and median overall survival (OS) between 7.7 and 18.0 months. In randomised trials of chemotherapy pre-treated patients, nivolumab was recently shown to improve PFS compared to placebo, but tremelimumab was not superior to placebo, and there was no difference in OS between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy. However, response to combination ICI appear more promising in both pre-treated and treatment-naïve mesothelioma. The randomised Phase 3 trial of upfront ipilimumab-nivolumab versus platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy demonstrated improved OS favouring ipilimumab-nivolumab (HR 0.74, 96.6% CI 0.60-0.91; p = 0.0020), establishing this regimen as a new standard of care, especially in non-epithelioid histological subtypes. However, initially PFS was poorer in the ipilimumab-nivolumab than chemotherapy treatment arms. A single-arm Phase 2 trial of upfront platinum chemotherapy and durvalumab met its primary endpoint, with a 6-month PFS of 57% (95% CI 44-70) with chemo-immunotherapy under evaluation as an alternative upfront regimen. Several questions remain unanswered. Comparative studies of chemo-immunotherapy versus chemotherapy are underway, but these do not compare chemo-immunotherapy to combination ICI. There is a critical need to establish predictive biomarkers to improve patient selection. As ICI use moves into the front-line setting, patient selection, role for operable patients, and understanding ICI resistance mechanisms alongside role of ICI rechallenge in previous responders need further evaluation.

Two Complementarity Immunotherapeutics in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients-Mechanism of Action and Future Concepts

Simple Summary

Here, we focused on the most important mechanisms of action of combined immunotherapy with modern anticancer approaches in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. This knowledge is extremely important for lung cancer clinicians. First, it facilitates proper involvement of the patient in the treatment and monitoring its effectiveness. More importantly, the knowledge of the immunotherapy mechanisms will certainly allow quick recognition of the side effects of such a therapy, which are totally different of those observed after chemotherapy. Side effects of combination therapies can occur at any stage of treatment, and even after completion thereof. This review article could particularly explain the mechanism of action of combined immunotherapy, which have different targets in patients.

Abstract

Due to the limited effectiveness of immunotherapy used as first-line monotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the concepts of combining classical immunotherapy based on immune checkpoint antibodies with other treatment methods have been developed. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were registered in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, while durvalumab found its application in consolidation therapy after successful chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced NSCLC. Exceptionally attractive, due to their relatively low toxicity and high effectiveness, are treatment approaches in which a combination of two different immunotherapy methods is applied. This method is based on observations from clinical trials in which nivolumab and ipilimumab were used as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC. It turned out that the dual blockade of immune checkpoints activated T lymphocytes in different compartments of the immune response, at the same time affecting the downregulation of immune suppressor cells (regulatory T cells). These experiments not only resulted in the registration of combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, but also initiated other clinical trials using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with other ICIs or activators of costimulatory molecules found on immune cells. There are also studies in which ICIs are associated with molecules that modify the tumour environment. This paper describes the mechanism of the synergistic effect of a combination of different immunotherapy methods in NSCLC patients.

Response Rate and Survival at Key Timepoints With PD-1 Blockade vs Chemotherapy in PD-L1 Subgroups: Meta-Analysis of Metastatic NSCLC Trials

Background

Expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on tumor cells with or without immune cells is widely reported in clinical trials of programmed cell death receptor 1 (PD-1) blockade in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Various cutpoints have been studied.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and conference proceedings up to December 2019 for randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 monotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. We retrieved data on objective response rate (ORR), 1-year and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), and 2-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) in various PD-L1 subgroups. Results were pooled and analyzed based on different cutpoints, with nonrandomized comparisons made with pooled chemotherapy outcomes.

Results

A total of 9810 patients in 27 studies were included. In treatment-naïve patients, benefits with PD-1 blockade over chemotherapy were seen in ORR in patients having PD-L1 50% or greater, in 2-year OS for PD-L1 1% or greater, and in 1-year PFS, 2-year PFS, and 3-year OS for unselected patients. First-line PD-1 blockade compared with chemotherapy demonstrated higher ORR, 2-year PFS, and 3-year OS if PD-L1 was 50% or greater; lower ORR, higher 2-year PFS, and similar 3-year OS if PD-L1 was 1%-49%; and lower ORR, similar 1-year PFS, and lower 2-year OS if PD-L1 was less than 1%. In previously treated patients, PD-1 blockade demonstrated similar or superior outcomes to chemotherapy in all PD-L1 subgroups.

Conclusions

PD-L1 should guide the choice of PD-1 blockade vs chemotherapy in treatment-naïve patients. In previously treated patients, PD-1 blockade provides a favorable outcome profile to chemotherapy in all PD-L1 subgroups.

Selection of optimal first-line immuno-related therapy based on specific pathological characteristics for patients with advanced driver-gene wild-type non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival for advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a lack of direct comparisons of various first-line treatments is clouding clinical decision-making. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare current first-line treatments and identify the optimal regimen for patients with specific characteristics.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials databases were searched from inception to 31 July 2020. Phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing first-line treatments including chemotherapy, anti-angiogenesis, ICIs, and their combinations for previously untreated stage IIIB/IV or recurrent driver-gene wild-type NSCLC patients were included.

Results

Twenty-six RCTs were identified and included, involving 16,977 patients and a total of 18 regimens. ICI-containing treatments led to significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) compared with ICI-free treatments (0.82, 0.72-0.93). ICI plus chemotherapy had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS; 0.70, 0.58-0.86) and marginally longer OS (0.90, 0.79-1.05) compared with ICIs alone. Ranking highest in the Bayesian network meta-analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy, had significantly superior OS than standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab treatments. Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy ranked first for OS, 1-year OS rate, and subgroups of non-squamous, PD-L1 ⩾1%, non-smoking, and liver metastasis; while nivolumab-ipilimumab-chemotherapy for squamous, PD-L1 <1%, brain metastasis NSCLC. Furthermore, the ICI-containing bevacizumab-free treatments, such as pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy, were not significantly different from atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and bevacizumab in OS.

Conclusions

A combination of ICIs with chemotherapy, rather than double ICIs, is the best first-line treatment for advanced wild-type NSCLC, with synergy that leads to better long-term survival. The panoramic view of the relative efficacy of any two regimens with different rankings provides strong evidence for selecting optimal first-line ICIs according to patients' clinical characteristics.

Molecular and Clinical Features of Hospital Admissions in Patients with Thoracic Malignancies on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Lung cancer patients undergoing systemic treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can lead to severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may warrant immediate hospitalization. Patients with thoracic malignancies hospitalized at City of Hope while undergoing treatment with ICIs were identified. Pathology and available next-generation sequencing (NGS) data, including the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and clinical information, including hospitalizations, invasive procedures, and the occurrence of irAEs, were collected. Unpaired T-tests, Chi-square/Fisher's exact test, and logistic regression were used to analyze our cohort. The overall survival (OS) was calculated and compared using univariate and multivariate COX models. Ninety patients with stage IV lung cancer were admitted after ICI treatment. Of those patients, 28 (31.1%) had documented irAEs. Genomic analyses showed an enrichment of LRP1B mutations (n = 5/6 vs. n = 7/26, 83.3% vs. 26.9%; odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI): 13.5 (1.7-166.1); p < 0.05) and MLL3 mutations (n = 4/6, 66.7% vs. n = 5/26, 19.2%; OR (95% CI): 8.4 (1.3-49.3), p < 0.05) in patients with irAE occurrences. Patients with somatic genomic alterations (GAs) in MET (median OS of 2.7 vs. 7.2 months; HR (95% CI): 3.1 (0.57-17.1); p < 0.05) or FANCA (median OS of 3.0 vs. 12.4 months; HR (95% CI): 3.1 (0.70-13.8); p < 0.05) demonstrated a significantly shorter OS. Patients with irAEs showed a trend toward improved OS (median OS 16.4 vs. 6.8 months, p = 0.19) compared to hospitalized patients without documented irAEs. Lung cancer patients who required treatment discontinuance or interruption due to irAEs (n = 19) had significantly longer OS (median OS 18.5 vs. 6.2 months; HR (95% CI): 0.47 (0.28-0.79); p < 0.05). Our results showed a significant survival benefit in lung cancer patients hospitalized due to irAEs that necessitated a treatment interruption. Patients with positive somatic GAs in MET and FANCA were associated with significantly worse OS compared to patients with negative GAs.