Pathologist-initiated reflex testing for biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: expert consensus on the rationale and considerations for implementation

Biomarker tests in lung cancer have been traditionally ordered by the treating oncologist upon confirmation of an appropriate pathological diagnosis. The delay this introduces prolongs yet further what is already a complex, multi-stage, pre-treatment pathway and delays the start of first-line systemic treatment, which is crucially informed by the results of such analysis. Reflex testing, in which the responsibility for testing for an agreed range of biomarkers lies with the pathologist, has been shown to standardise and expedite the process. Twelve experts discussed the rationale and considerations for implementing reflex testing as standard clinical practice.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

First-line immunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with ECOG performance status 2: results of an International Expert Panel Meeting by the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy represents the standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy in high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (≥50%) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. However, most pivotal clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) did not include patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. Hence, a consensus is lacking on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this specific subgroup of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2021 with the aim of reviewing the available evidence on the use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS 2, both in clinical practice and in a research setting.

RESULTS

All panelists expressed concern about the applicability of currently available PS scales to evaluate patients for ICI treatment. The panelists agreed that, though limited, the available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in PS 2 NSCLC patients, whereas concern was raised on the safety of ICI combinations, mainly related to chemotherapy and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 toxicity. On the basis of reviewed data, ICI efficacy may be speculated in PS 2 NSCLC patients; however, PS 2 remains a negative prognostic category as compared to PS 0-1 in patients treated with ICI, as it is for chemotherapy. The panelists defined high, medium and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to the inclusion of PS 2 patients in prospective clinical trials and the specific evaluation of combined ICI treatments with attenuated chemotherapy doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the major limitations affecting PS 2 patients with NSCLC and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting.

Clinical definition of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Acquired resistance (AR) to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] blockade is frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), occurring in a majority of initial responders. Patients with AR may have unique properties of persistent antitumor immunity that could be re-harnessed by investigational immunotherapies. The absence of a consistent clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade and lack of uniform criteria for ensuing enrollment in clinical trials remains a major barrier to progress; such clinical definitions have advanced biologic and therapeutic discovery. We examine the considerations and potential controversies in developing a patient-level definition of AR in NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Taking into account the specifics of NSCLC biology and corresponding treatment strategies, we propose a practical, clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade for use in clinical reports and prospective clinical trials. Patients should meet the following criteria: received treatment that includes PD-(L)1 blockade; experienced objective response on PD-(L)1 blockade (inclusion of a subset of stable disease will require future investigation); have progressive disease occurring within 6 months of last anti-PD-(L)1 antibody treatment or rechallenge with anti-PD-(L)1 antibody in patients not exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 in 6 months.

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts' perspective

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care.

Accuracy of automated three-dimensional ultrasound imaging technique for fetal head biometry

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of an automated three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound technique for fetal intracranial measurements compared with manual acquisition.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of patients presenting for routine anatomical survey between 18 + 0 and 22 + 6 weeks' gestation. After providing informed consent, each patient underwent two consecutive ultrasound examinations of the fetal head, one by a sonographer and one by a physician. Each operator obtained manual measurements of the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), transcerebellar diameter (TCD), cisterna magna (CM) and posterior horn of the lateral ventricle (Vp), followed by automated measurements of these structures using an artificial intelligence-based tool, SonoCNS® Fetal Brain. Both operators repeated the automated approach until all five measurements were obtained in a single sweep, up to a maximum of three attempts. The accuracy of automated measurements was compared with that of manual measurements using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) by operator type, accounting for patient and ultrasound characteristics.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-three women were enrolled in the study. Median body mass index was 24.0 kg/m² (interquartile range (IQR), 22.5-26.8 kg/m² ) and median subcutaneous thickness was 1.6 cm (IQR, 1.3-2.0 cm). Fifteen (10%) patients had at least one prior Cesarean delivery, 17 (12%) had other abdominal surgery and 78 (55%) had an anterior placenta. Successful acquisition of the automated measurements was achieved on the first, second and third attempts in 70%, 22% and 3% of patients, respectively, by sonographers and in 76%, 16% and 3% of cases, respectively, by physicians. The automated algorithm was not able to identify and measure all five structures correctly in six (4%) and seven (5%) patients scanned by the sonographers and physicians, respectively. The ICCs reflected good reliability (0.80-0.88) of the automated compared with the manual approach for BPD and HC and poor to moderate reliability (0.23-0.50) for TCD, CM and Vp. Fetal lie, head position, placental location, maternal subcutaneous thickness and prior Cesarean section were not associated with the success or accuracy of the automated technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated 3D ultrasound imaging of the fetal head using SonoCNS reliably identified and measured BPD and HC but was less consistent in accurately identifying and measuring TCD, CM and Vp. While these results are encouraging, further optimization of the automated technology is necessary prior to incorporation of the technique into routine sonographic protocols. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

How to make the best use of immunotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Antibodies that target programmed death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand [programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)] have become a mainstay of first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable genetic alterations. In this review, we summarize results from recent clinical trials that have evaluated the anti-PD-1 antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab and the anti-PD-L1 antibodies atezolizumab and durvalumab as first-line treatment as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy, other immunotherapies, and antiangiogenesis agents. We discuss factors that may influence treatment selection, including patient baseline clinical and demographic characteristics, tumor histology, and biomarkers such as PD-L1 expression and tumor mutation burden. While immunotherapy has become a central component of first-line treatment of most patients with advanced NSCLC, important questions remain about how treatment should be managed for individual patients.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study

Background

The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX.

Patients and methods

Overall, 303 patients aged ≥18 years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8 weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression.

Results

In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n = 64; crizotinib, n = 58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n = 21; crizotinib, n = 22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n = 25; crizotinib, n = 21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25–0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33–0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P < 0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not.

Conclusion

Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840

Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial

Background

In LUX-Lung 7, the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) versus gefitinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present primary analysis of mature overall survival (OS) data.

Patients and methods

LUX-Lung 7 assessed afatinib 40 mg/day versus gefitinib 250 mg/day in treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion/L858R). Primary OS analysis was planned after ∼213 OS events and ≥32-month follow-up. OS was analysed by a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation type and baseline brain metastases.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty-six OS events had occurred at the data cut-off (8 April 2016). After a median follow-up of 42.6 months, median OS (afatinib versus gefitinib) was 27.9 versus 24.5 months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66‒1.12, P = 0.2580]. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed similar OS trends (afatinib versus gefitinib) in patients with exon 19 deletion (30.7 versus 26.4 months; HR, 0.83, 95% CI 0.58‒1.17, P = 0.2841) and L858R (25.0 versus 21.2 months; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62‒1.36, P = 0.6585) mutations. Most patients (afatinib, 72.6%; gefitinib, 76.8%) had at least one subsequent systemic anti-cancer treatment following discontinuation of afatinib/gefitinib; 20 (13.7%) and 23 (15.2%) patients received a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib.

Conclusion

In LUX-Lung 7, there was no significant difference in OS with afatinib versus gefitinib. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier

NCT01466660.