High-dose alectinib for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the Blood First Assay Screening Trial

Introduction

This paper presents results from Cohort B (rearranged during transfection [RET], fusion-positive) of the Blood First Assay Screening Trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screened for genetic alterations using blood-based next-generation sequencing.

Material and methods

Adults with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC received alectinib 900 mg twice daily (BID) in Phase I. Enrolment closed prematurely with Phase II uninitiated.

Results

Among eight treated patients, confirmed best overall responses in evaluable patients were stable disease (4/5) and progressive disease (1/5). One dose-limiting toxicity (death, unknown cause) was considered by the investigator to be related to treatment and underlying disease. Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in five patients, and SAEs that may be related to treatment occurred in two patients.

Conclusions

Alectinib showed limited activity in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and further investigation was not conducted due to the development of selective RET inhibitors pralsetinib and selpercatinib. No new safety signals were observed, and the safety profile of alectinib was in line with previous reports at the 600 mg BID dose.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (POSEIDON)

OBJECTIVES

In the phase 3 POSEIDON study, first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve patients were randomized 1:1:1 to tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy, durvalumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoints) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire version 3 (QLQ-C30) and its 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13). We analyzed time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization by log-rank test and improvement rates by logistic regression.

RESULTS

972/1013 (96 %) patients randomized completed baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, with scores comparable between treatment arms. Patients receiving tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy had longer median TTD for all PRO items. Hazard ratios for TTD favored tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy for all items except diarrhea; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, constipation, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For durvalumab plus chemotherapy, median TTD was longer versus chemotherapy for all items except nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. Hazard ratios favored durvalumab plus chemotherapy for all items except appetite loss; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For both immunotherapy plus chemotherapy arms, improvement rates in all PRO items were numerically higher versus chemotherapy, with odds ratios > 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy delayed deterioration in symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with chemotherapy. Together with significant improvements in survival, these results support tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option in metastatic NSCLC.

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Combination With Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III POSEIDON Study

PURPOSE

The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC).

METHODS

Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR/ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT.

RESULTS

PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Final results from TAIL: updated long-term efficacy of atezolizumab in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

In patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), atezolizumab therapy improves survival with manageable safety. The open-label, single-arm phase III/IV TAIL study (NCT03285763) evaluated atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated NSCLC, including those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, severe renal impairment, prior anti-programmed death 1 therapy, autoimmune disease, and age ≥75 years. Patients received atezolizumab intravenously (1200 mg) every 3 weeks. At data cut-off for final analysis, the median follow-up was 36.1 (range 0.0-42.3) months. Treatment-related (TR) serious adverse events (SAEs) and TR immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were the coprimary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and duration of response. Safety and efficacy in key patient subgroups were also assessed. TR SAEs and TR irAEs occurred in 8.0% and 9.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were documented. In the overall population, median OS and PFS (95% CI) were 11.2 months (8.9 to 12.7) and 2.7 months (2.3 to 2.8), respectively. TAIL showed that atezolizumab has a similar risk-benefit profile in clinically diverse patients with previously treated NSCLC, which may guide treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from pivotal clinical trials.

The role and impact of immunotherapy in multiple malignancies in the Mexican population

e14570

Background: Cancer in Mexico represents the third cause of death nationally. Immunotherapy agents have changed management and prognosis of cancer patients. Immune-checkpoint agents are now being used as both first- and second-line treatment improving cancer patient prognosis, nevertheless it is not always accessible. Methods: Retrospective review of patients diagnosed with any type of cancer that received immunotherapy during their disease course from the last 5-years. We present the most common malignancies, immunotherapeutic regimens received, population characteristics and survival analysis. Results: 130 records of patients ≥18 years that received immunotherapy were included. 52.3% female with mean age of 59 years (range, 22-89 years), 48.5% former smokers (average pack/year of 22.5) and 31.5% asbestos exposure. 53.1% were ECOG 0 and 82.3% clinical stage IV. 62.3% of cases were lung adenocarcinoma, followed by lung epidermoid carcinoma (13.1%) and 10% small-cell lung carcinoma. Immunotherapeutic agents used included nivolumab in 63.1%, pembrolizumab 12.3%, nivolumab + ipilimumab 8.5%, durvalumab 6.2%, pembrolizumab + ipilimumab 4.6%. 36.2% of patients received immunotherapy as second line treatment, 30.0% as third and 23.8% as first line treatment. The best Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was RECIST 3 in 46.2% followed by RECIST 0 with 25.4%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5 months (95% CI; 3.883-6.117) and median OS of 13 months (95% CI; 10.210-15.790). Analysis per immunotherapy on PFS (p = 0.0414) and OS (p = 0.0046) demonstrated pembrolizumab had the longest median PFS with 19-months and OS with 22-months. Analysis between tumor types was significant for both PFS (p = 0.0018) and OS (p = 0.0090) with melanoma having the longest median PFS (42-months) and OS (46-months). Conclusions: Immunotherapy has changed cancer management; however, its use depends on specific biomarkers and adequate patient selection. Not all patients benefit from immunotherapy, in a country like ours where resources are limited, it is of vital importance to properly select candidates for immunotherapy. Even though, all patients had an FDA-approved indication at the time of receiving immunotherapy, PFS and OS are not as significant as Phase 3 studies demonstrate, this may be due to late stages, advanced ECOG, correct biomarkers availability and adequate patient selection. It is important to mention that about 40-60% of patients with immunotherapy do not respond adequately. In our study, because there is more evidence with pembrolizumab, the patients who received it were better chosen and therefore there was an impact in PFS and OS. Immunotherapy selection also depends on physician experience to the different immunotherapy regimens.

Durvalumab (D) +/- tremelimumab (T) + chemotherapy (CT) in first-line (1L) metastatic (m) NSCLC: AE management in POSEIDON

9035

Background: In the Phase 3 POSEIDON study in 1L mNSCLC, adding T to D+CT resulted in statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS vs CT. No new safety signals were identified and treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar for the T+D+CT and D+CT arms (15.5% and 14.1%). Here we present details of AEs and their management. Methods: 1013 pts with EGFR/ ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 to 1L T+D+CT, D+CT or CT. Safety was assessed in all treated pts. Results: 330, 334 and 333 pts received T+D+CT, D+CT and CT; 78%, 82% and 74% received at least 4 cycles of platinum-based CT. The most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were hematologic (anemia in 17%, 15% and 20% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms and neutropenia in 16%, 13% and 12%) and most were managed using standard approaches per local practice; 22%, 18% and 16% of pts received colony stimulating factors and 22%, 21% and 26% received blood transfusions. All grade immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) occurred in 34%, 19% and 5% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms; a higher incidence of diarrhea/colitis, dermatitis/rash and endocrinopathies was seen with the addition of T to D+CT (Table). Grade 3/4 imAEs occurred in 10%, 7% and 2% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms, and serious imAEs in 10%, 6% and 1%; imAEs led to discontinuation of any study treatment in 6%, 4% and 0.6%, and led to death in 0.6%, 0.3% and 0%. Most imAEs were low grade and manageable with systemic corticosteroids (received by 26%, 13% and 4% of pts in the T+D+CT, D+CT and CT arms) or endocrine therapy (12%, 8% and 1%). Median time from first dose to onset of imAEs (TTO) was generally > 60 days and the majority of non-endocrine imAEs resolved (Table). Conclusions: In POSEIDON, the safety profile of all regimens was manageable per standard guidelines and in line with the known profiles of D, T+D and CT; the most common grade 3/4 TRAEs were those typically associated with CT. As expected, more imAEs occurred with T+D+CT than D+CT, but the incidence of grade 3 or 4 imAEs, imAE-related deaths and treatment discontinuations due to imAEs was generally similar in the IO arms. T+D did not compromise the ability to administer planned CT. Clinical trial information: NCT03164616. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19.

Methods

In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027.

Findings

Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of −2·7 percentage points (95% CI −7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41–0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47–0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups.

Interpretation

Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company.

Translations

For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Blood First Assay Screening Trial (BFAST) in Treatment-Naive Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: Initial Results of the Phase 2 ALK-Positive Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is an ongoing open-label, multicohort study, prospectively evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations and activity of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We present data from the ALK-positive cohort.

METHODS

Patients aged more than or equal to 18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ALK rearrangements detected by blood-based NGS using hybrid capture technology (FoundationACT) received alectinib 600 mg twice daily. Asymptomatic or treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Secondary end points were independent review facility-assessed ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points were investigator-assessed ORR in patients with baseline CNS metastases and relationship between circulating biomarkers and response.

RESULTS

In total, 2219 patients were screened and blood-based NGS yielded results in 98.6% of the cases. Of these, 119 patients (5.4%) had ALK-positive disease; 87 were enrolled and received alectinib. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range: 2.6-18.7). Confirmed ORR was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5-93.5) by investigator and 92.0% (95% CI: 84.1-96.7) by independent review facility. Investigator-confirmed 12-month duration of response was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-88.2). In 35 patients (40%) with baseline CNS disease, investigator-assessed ORR was 91.4% (95% CI: 76.9-98.2). Median PFS was not reached; 12-month investigator-assessed PFS was 78.4% (95% CI: 69.1-87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profile of alectinib.

CONCLUSIONS

These results reveal the clinical application of blood-based NGS as a method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK-positive NSCLC.

Primary results from TAIL: a global single-arm safety study of atezolizumab monotherapy in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab treatment improves survival, with manageable safety, in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The global phase III/IV study TAIL (NCT03285763) was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer, including those not eligible for pivotal trials.

METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer whose disease progressed after 1-2 lines of chemotherapy were eligible for this open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, including those with severe renal impairment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, prior anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) therapy, and autoimmune disease. Atezolizumab was administered intravenously (1200 mg every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were treatment-related serious adverse events and immune-related adverse events.

RESULTS

619 patients enrolled and 615 received atezolizumab. At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 12.6 months (95% CI 11.9 to 13.1). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 7.8% and immune-related adverse events in 8.3% of all patients and as follows, respectively, in these subgroups: renal impairment (n=78), 11.5% and 12.8%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 (n=61), 14.8% and 8.2%; prior anti-PD-1 therapy (n=39), 5.1% and 7.7%; and autoimmune disease (n=30), 6.7% and 10.0%. No new safety signals were reported. In the overall population, the median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 12.9), the median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.1 to 2.8) and the objective response rate was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed the benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. These safety and efficacy outcomes may inform treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials.

Updated Overall Survival and PD-L1 Subgroup Analysis of Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Atezolizumab, Carboplatin, and Etoposide (IMpower133)

IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported.

Phimosis: A rare complication of immunotherapy with durvalumab

We present a case of a 69 year old man with phimosis associated with immunotherapy with durvalumab for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. The patient developed vitiligo like dermatosis after the induction dose of durvalumab, subsequent administration of the immunotherapy the patient developed a fibrous ring of the foreskin. Immune-mediated adverse reactions have been described after the use of durvalumab, but, to our knowledge, there are no reports of phimosis and vitiligo like reactions.

Molecular characterization of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma at diagnosis with next generation sequencing by liquid biopsy in the Mexican population

e21511

Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Tumor biopsy represents the standard for molecular diagnosis, nevertheless it is not always feasible to obtain. Liquid Biopsy (LB) may offer an alternative in the first line setting. Methods: Retrospective review of case files and next generation sequencing report (NGS) from LB from patients in a Validation Trial, performed from January 2018 to September 2019. We present the molecular alterations and clinical characteristics of the population. Results: 147 records and LB reports of patients 18 years and older with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma without prior treatment were included. 40% of the population had been selected based on a commercial local PCR test for EGFR (Idylla). 49% of them were female with Mean age of 60.9 ± 12.7. 56% had a history of smoking with an average packs/year of 20.5 (1-156) and 39% had exposure to wood smoke, 92% had an ECOG 0-1. 65 % of the Patients were diagnosed in Clinical Stage (8th Edition) IVA and 22% in IVB. 13% had SNC metastasis. The LB detected genomic alterations in 85.5% of the cases. 78% represent pathogenic mutations and 7.5% variants of uncertain significance (VUS).14.5% of the biopsies could not detect any ctDNA. The most frequent aberrations reported were TP53 in 51.7%, KRAS 16%, EGFR 16%, ALK 9%, PIK3CA 4%, RET 4%, BRAF 3%, BRCA 3, and HER2 3%. In addition, 20% had bTMB ≥10. Only 20% of the patients could receive a targeted therapy or immunotherapy of the potential ≈50%. Most cases had co-mutations (1-6 x case). Looking for factors associated with the presence of bTMB by a logistic regression model, it was possible to identify the presence of CNS metastases and smoking as identified with an OR of 3,688 (p = 0. 0.042) and 3.952 (p = 0. 024) respectively. Conclusions: It is feasible to have tumor molecular analysis through liquid biopsy in most cases, with genetic alterations previously reported in tumor tissue in the first line setting. [Table: see text]

Human skin biomarkers and his relation with the response to treatment to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinoma

e21544

Background: A relationship between EGFR signaling pathway expression in skin and the use of targeted cancer therapies has been consistently demonstrated. Nonetheless, consistent evidence to support the use of skin biopsies as a surrogate for therapeutic evaluation. Methods: The present study is a prospective single-blind analysis of skin biopsies of patients with confirmed advanced EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry was performed with EGFR, p27, Ki67, STAT3, and MAPK, as well as an H&E histopathological analysis, looking for their relationship with the response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the cutoff value for each biomarker selected dichotomizing the response to treatment as mentioned in the tissue samples section (adequate response or no response). Kaplan Meier analysis for progression-free survival was performed. Results: From the 35 biopsies obtained, 21 (60%) of the patients were women and 14 (40%) men; the mean age of participants was 60.6±11.7 years. Twelve patients (34.3%) were at the pre-treatment group, 12 (34.3%) had an adequate response to treatment and 11 (31.4%) were at the no response to treatment group. The median progression-free survival was 9 months. The next biomarkers were significantly related to an adequate response to treatment by using a bivariate correlation test: EGFR (p = 0.025), Ki67 (p = 0.015), STAT3 (p = 0.017), stratum corneum thickness (p = 0.039) and the number of layers of the stratum corneum(p = 0.041). A better median of progression-free survival was obtained on those with a value above of the cutoff preestablished of EGFR (21 months versus 7 months, 95% CI 0-46 versus 4.23-9.77, p = 0.025) and number of layers of the stratum corneum (21 months versus 8 months, 95% CI 0-43.81 versus 6.72-9.28, p = 0.030), however, for p27 a better median of progression-free survival was shown in those with a value below the cutoff before mentioned (21 months versus 8 months, 95% CI 8.17-33.83 versus 6.87-9.13, p = 0.031). Conclusions: We found a relationship between EGFR, Ki67, STAT3, stratum corneum, number of layers of stratum corneum, with the response to treatment, and better progression-free survival for high expression EGFR, number of layers of the stratum corneum and low expression for p27. The present study should incite to perform a further investigation to validate these markers as potential prognostic and predictive factors.

Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients (pts) with autoimmune disease (AID): Subgroup analysis of the TAIL study

e21628

Background: Atezo showed improved survival and a manageable safety profile in advanced NSCLC. The Phase III/IV TAIL study (NCT03285763) evaluated atezo in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC, including pts often excluded from pivotal trials. We analyzed outcomes in pts with a history of AID in TAIL. Methods: Pts had stage IIIb/IV NSCLC that progressed after 1-2 lines of chemo and ECOG PS ≤ 2. Eligible pts included those with preexisting AID. Pts received atezo 1200 mg IV q3w. The primary endpoint was safety as measured by the incidence of treatment-related (TR) serious AEs (SAEs) and TR immune-related AEs (irAEs). Secondary endpoints included OS, PFS, ORR and other safety measures. Results: Of the 619 pts enrolled, 615 received atezo, including 30 pts with AID. In AID pts, the median age was 67 y, 43.3% were male and 86.7% had ECOG PS 0-1; common preexisting conditions included psoriasis (n = 7) and rheumatoid arthritis (n = 5). 23 pts had active AID at baseline. At data cutoff (Jun 4 2019), median follow-up was 12.7 mo. TR SAEs occurred in 6.7% and 7.9% of AID vs non-AID pts, respectively; TR irAEs occurred in 10.0% and 8.2% (table). AEs occurring in AID pts at a ≥ 10% difference vs non-AID pts were decreased appetite (26.7%), nausea (26.7%), dyspnea (23.3%) and pneumonitis (13.3%). G3-4 AE incidences were similar between groups (30.0% vs 29.9%). AEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 16.7% and 4.3% of AID vs non-AID pts and included G1-2 pneumonitis (6.7%), G3-4 pleural infection (3.3%) and G3-4 pneumonia (3.3%). AEs of special interest (AESI) occurred more frequently in AID (40.0%) vs non-AID (34.2%) pts, with pneumonitis (13.3% vs 3.1%), rash (13.3% vs 10.6%) and hypothyroidism (6.7% vs 9.6%) as the most common AESIs in either group. Exploratory efficacy analyses in AID vs non-AID pts showed an mOS of 10.1 vs 11.1 mo, an mPFS of 2.9 vs 2.7 mo and ORRs of 10.0% vs 11.1%. Conclusions: Despite the small number of AID pts, safety and efficacy outcomes of atezo in TAIL pts with a history of AID were similar to those of pts with no history of AID. Moderate AE increases seen in AID pts tended to be respiratory in nature or GI disorders. These data may inform treatment decisions in pts with advanced NSCLC and AID. Clinical trial information: NCT03285763. [Table: see text]

National Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-small cell lung cancer in early, locally advanced and metastatic stages. Extended version

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer is one the leading causes of mortality worldwide. Symptomatic manifestations of the disease generally occur in the advanced-stage setting, and therefore an important number of patients have advanced or metastatic disease by the time they are diagnosed. This situation contributes to a poor prognosis in the treatment of lung cancer. Evidencebased clinical recommendations are of great value to support decision-making for daily practice, and thus improving health care quality and patient outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This document was an initiative of the Mexican Society of Oncology (SMEO) in collaboration with Mexican Center of Clinical Excellence (Cenetec) according to Interna- tional Standards. Such standards included those described by the IOM, NICE, SIGN and GI-N. An interdisciplinary Guideline Development Group (GDG) was put together which included medical oncologists, surgical oncologistsc, radiation therapists, and methodologists with expertise in critical appraisal, sys- tematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines development.

RESULTS

62 clinical questions were agreed among members of the GDG. With the evidence identified from systematic reviews, the GDG developed clinical recommendations using a Modified Delphi Panel technique. Patients' representatives validated them.

CONCLUSIONS

These Clinical Practice Guideline aims to support the shared decision-making process for patients with different stages of non-small cell lung cancer. Our goal is to improve health-care quality on these patients.

Usefulness of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in evaluating response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced non small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cohort study

Background

High serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Its role as a predictive marker of treatment response has not been widely characterized.

Methods

180 patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB or Stage IV), who had an elevated CEA serum level (>10 ng/ml) at baseline and who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen, were included. CEA levels were measured after two treatment cycles of platinum based chemotherapy (93%) or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (7%). We assessed the change in serum CEA levels and the association with response measured by RECIST criteria.

Results

After two chemotherapy cycles, the patients who achieved an objective response (OR, 28.3%) had a reduction of CEA levels of 55.6% (95% CI 64.3-46.8) compared to its basal level, with an area under the ROC curve (AURC) of 0.945 (95% CI 0.91-0.99), and a sensitivity and specificity of 90.2 and 89.9%, respectively, for a CEA reduction of ≥14%. Patients that achieved a decrease in CEA levels ≥14% presented an overall response in 78% of cases, stable disease in 20.3% and progression in 1.7%, while patients that did not attain a reduction ≥14% had an overall response of 4.1%, stable disease of 63.6% and progression of 32.2% (p < 0.001). Patients with stable (49.4%) and progressive disease (22.2%) had an increase of CEA levels of 9.4% (95% CI 1.5-17.3) and 87.5% (95% CI 60.9-114) from baseline, respectively (p < 0.001). The AURC for progressive disease was 0.911 (95% CI 0.86-0.961), with sensitivity and specificity of 85 and 15%, respectively, for a CEA increase of ≥18%. PFS was longer in patients with a ≥14% reduction in CEA (8.7 vs. 5.1 months, p < 0.001). Reduction of CEA was not predictive of OS.

Conclusions

A CEA level reduction is a sensitive and specific marker of OR, as well as a sensitive indicator for progression to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who had an elevated CEA at baseline and had received no more than one chemotherapy regimen. A 14% decrease in CEA levels is associated with a longer PFS.

[National consensus of diagnosis and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer]

Mexican specialists in oncology, oncologic surgery, thoracic surgery, pneumology, pathology, molecular biology, anesthesiology, algology, psychology, nutrition, and rehabilitation (all of them experts in lung cancer treatment) in order to develop the National Consensus on Lung Cancer. The consensus has been developed as an answer to the need of updated Mexican guidelines for the optimal treatment of the disease, as well as to the requirements that such guidelines be established by multidisciplinary panel, depicting the current attention given to cancer lung cases in Mexico. Thus, this paper analyses the epidemiological review, screening, diagnosis, staging, pathology, translational medicine, and the suitable therapies for early, locally advanced, and metastatic disease in the first, second, and third lines of management, as well as rehabilitation and palliative measures.