IASLC 2019

BARCELONA – Nivolumab, compared with docetaxel chemotherapy, led to a fivefold improvement in 5-year overall survival among previously treated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of data from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 trials.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates from the two randomized registrational trials, which established the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab as the standard salvage therapy for NSCLC, were 13.4% vs. 2.6% (median, 11.1 vs. 8.1 months) with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively, Scott Gettinger, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“These are the first randomized trials to report 5-year outcomes for a PD-1 axis inhibitor in patients with previously treated advanced non–small lung cancer,” said Dr. Gettinger, a professor at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn. “This is really unprecedented; we wouldn’t expect many patients to be out 5 years in this scenario.”

Notably, the 5-year OS benefit was seen in both trials, he said, explaining that each compared nivolumab and docetaxel, but CheckMate 017 included patients with only squamous NSCLC, and CheckMate 057 included only non–squamous NSCLC patients.

The trials randomized 272 and 582 patients, respectively, and both demonstrated significantly improved 12-month OS with nivolumab – regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Common eligibility criteria included stage IIIb/IV disease, good performance status (ECOG performance score of 0-1), and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy; CheckMate 057 further allowed prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for known anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and allowed prior maintenance therapy. Doses in both trials were 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 75 mg/m² of intravenous docetaxel every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The pooled data also showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years (8% vs. 0%) with nivolumab vs. docetaxel groups.

“Again, we don’t see this in trials – more commonly we see zero patients without progression, and that’s what we saw with the docetaxel arm,” said Dr. Gettinger, who also is the Disease Aligned Research Team Leader, Thoracic Oncology Program, at the cancer center.

The median duration of responses with nivolumab was 19.9 months vs. 5.6 months with docetaxel, and 32.2% of nivolumab responders were still without progression at 5 years, he noted.

A common question in the clinic relates to the prognosis in patients who do well with PD-1 axis inhibitors, which prompted an additional analysis across the two trials, he said, noting that 60%, 78%, and 88% of patients who had not progressed at 2, 3, or 4 years, respectively, also had not progressed at 5 years, and 80%, 93%, and 100%, of patients in those groups were alive at 5 years. In the docetaxel arm, only 4, 1, and 0 patients had PFS at 2, 3, and 4, years, respectively, and none of those patients survived to 5 years, he said.

No new safety signals were seen with long-term follow-up, he added.

“In fact there was only one grade 3 or higher toxicity that was related to treatment in the nivolumab arm, and this was a grade 3 lipase elevation. There was one patient who discontinued nivolumab after 3 years, and this was for a grade 2 rash and eczema that had waxed and waned since starting nivolumab,” he said.

Also of note, 10% of nivolumab-treated patients who were off treatment at 5 years – for variable periods of time – had not progressed and had not received subsequent therapy.

“So we clearly see benefit in our patients long after they finish a course or stop for some reason,” he said.

CheckMate 017 and 057 were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Gettinger reported advisory board and/or consulting work for, and/or research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Iovance, and Takeda/Ariad.

SOURCE: Gettinger S et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PR04.03.

BARCELONA – Nivolumab, compared with docetaxel chemotherapy, led to a fivefold improvement in 5-year overall survival among previously treated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of data from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 trials.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates from the two randomized registrational trials, which established the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab as the standard salvage therapy for NSCLC, were 13.4% vs. 2.6% (median, 11.1 vs. 8.1 months) with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively, Scott Gettinger, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“These are the first randomized trials to report 5-year outcomes for a PD-1 axis inhibitor in patients with previously treated advanced non–small lung cancer,” said Dr. Gettinger, a professor at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn. “This is really unprecedented; we wouldn’t expect many patients to be out 5 years in this scenario.”

Notably, the 5-year OS benefit was seen in both trials, he said, explaining that each compared nivolumab and docetaxel, but CheckMate 017 included patients with only squamous NSCLC, and CheckMate 057 included only non–squamous NSCLC patients.

The trials randomized 272 and 582 patients, respectively, and both demonstrated significantly improved 12-month OS with nivolumab – regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Common eligibility criteria included stage IIIb/IV disease, good performance status (ECOG performance score of 0-1), and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy; CheckMate 057 further allowed prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for known anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and allowed prior maintenance therapy. Doses in both trials were 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 75 mg/m² of intravenous docetaxel every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The pooled data also showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years (8% vs. 0%) with nivolumab vs. docetaxel groups.

“Again, we don’t see this in trials – more commonly we see zero patients without progression, and that’s what we saw with the docetaxel arm,” said Dr. Gettinger, who also is the Disease Aligned Research Team Leader, Thoracic Oncology Program, at the cancer center.

The median duration of responses with nivolumab was 19.9 months vs. 5.6 months with docetaxel, and 32.2% of nivolumab responders were still without progression at 5 years, he noted.

A common question in the clinic relates to the prognosis in patients who do well with PD-1 axis inhibitors, which prompted an additional analysis across the two trials, he said, noting that 60%, 78%, and 88% of patients who had not progressed at 2, 3, or 4 years, respectively, also had not progressed at 5 years, and 80%, 93%, and 100%, of patients in those groups were alive at 5 years. In the docetaxel arm, only 4, 1, and 0 patients had PFS at 2, 3, and 4, years, respectively, and none of those patients survived to 5 years, he said.

No new safety signals were seen with long-term follow-up, he added.

“In fact there was only one grade 3 or higher toxicity that was related to treatment in the nivolumab arm, and this was a grade 3 lipase elevation. There was one patient who discontinued nivolumab after 3 years, and this was for a grade 2 rash and eczema that had waxed and waned since starting nivolumab,” he said.

Also of note, 10% of nivolumab-treated patients who were off treatment at 5 years – for variable periods of time – had not progressed and had not received subsequent therapy.

“So we clearly see benefit in our patients long after they finish a course or stop for some reason,” he said.

CheckMate 017 and 057 were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Gettinger reported advisory board and/or consulting work for, and/or research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Iovance, and Takeda/Ariad.

SOURCE: Gettinger S et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PR04.03.

BARCELONA – Nivolumab, compared with docetaxel chemotherapy, led to a fivefold improvement in 5-year overall survival among previously treated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of data from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 trials.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates from the two randomized registrational trials, which established the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab as the standard salvage therapy for NSCLC, were 13.4% vs. 2.6% (median, 11.1 vs. 8.1 months) with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively, Scott Gettinger, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“These are the first randomized trials to report 5-year outcomes for a PD-1 axis inhibitor in patients with previously treated advanced non–small lung cancer,” said Dr. Gettinger, a professor at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn. “This is really unprecedented; we wouldn’t expect many patients to be out 5 years in this scenario.”

Notably, the 5-year OS benefit was seen in both trials, he said, explaining that each compared nivolumab and docetaxel, but CheckMate 017 included patients with only squamous NSCLC, and CheckMate 057 included only non–squamous NSCLC patients.

The trials randomized 272 and 582 patients, respectively, and both demonstrated significantly improved 12-month OS with nivolumab – regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Common eligibility criteria included stage IIIb/IV disease, good performance status (ECOG performance score of 0-1), and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy; CheckMate 057 further allowed prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for known anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and allowed prior maintenance therapy. Doses in both trials were 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 75 mg/m² of intravenous docetaxel every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The pooled data also showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years (8% vs. 0%) with nivolumab vs. docetaxel groups.

“Again, we don’t see this in trials – more commonly we see zero patients without progression, and that’s what we saw with the docetaxel arm,” said Dr. Gettinger, who also is the Disease Aligned Research Team Leader, Thoracic Oncology Program, at the cancer center.

The median duration of responses with nivolumab was 19.9 months vs. 5.6 months with docetaxel, and 32.2% of nivolumab responders were still without progression at 5 years, he noted.

A common question in the clinic relates to the prognosis in patients who do well with PD-1 axis inhibitors, which prompted an additional analysis across the two trials, he said, noting that 60%, 78%, and 88% of patients who had not progressed at 2, 3, or 4 years, respectively, also had not progressed at 5 years, and 80%, 93%, and 100%, of patients in those groups were alive at 5 years. In the docetaxel arm, only 4, 1, and 0 patients had PFS at 2, 3, and 4, years, respectively, and none of those patients survived to 5 years, he said.

No new safety signals were seen with long-term follow-up, he added.

“In fact there was only one grade 3 or higher toxicity that was related to treatment in the nivolumab arm, and this was a grade 3 lipase elevation. There was one patient who discontinued nivolumab after 3 years, and this was for a grade 2 rash and eczema that had waxed and waned since starting nivolumab,” he said.

Also of note, 10% of nivolumab-treated patients who were off treatment at 5 years – for variable periods of time – had not progressed and had not received subsequent therapy.

“So we clearly see benefit in our patients long after they finish a course or stop for some reason,” he said.

CheckMate 017 and 057 were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Gettinger reported advisory board and/or consulting work for, and/or research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Iovance, and Takeda/Ariad.

SOURCE: Gettinger S et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PR04.03.

BARCELONA – Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate activity in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but achieving more durable disease control and better survival requires improved understanding of biomarkers and the immune microenvironment.

That was the overarching message from experts speaking at a minisymposium on immunotherapy in SCLC at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“None of us are disputing that immunotherapy is clearly active in this space, but I think that we can all agree that the outcomes have been somewhat modest in an unselected population, and there is certainly room to grow,” said Dr. Stephen V. Liu, MD. “Moving forward, while we will look for any advances we can, we also feel strongly that these incremental gains are probably not enough.”
 

The state of the art

Hints that immunotherapy could be clinically efficacious in SCLC emerged in 2016 when interim findings from the CheckMate 032 study showed that the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, either alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab, had efficacy in recurrent SCLC. Efficacy was seen regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, which is “a good thing since PD-L1 is expressed much less frequently in SCLC than in non-SCLC,” Scott J. Antonia, MD, of Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., who was the first author on that study, said during the symposium.

A particularly encouraging finding was that responders included patients with platinum-refractory SCLC for whom treatments in the relapse setting are lacking, Dr Antonia said.

An exploratory analysis of CheckMate 032 also showed better responses among patients in the highest tumor mutation burden (TMB) tertile, especially in the combination therapy group, leading to the hypothesis-generating finding that TMB may predict response, he said.

Another suggestion of nivolumab’s potential came from the randomized CheckMate 331 study comparing the checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC patients. As reported in 2018 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), no overall survival (OS) benefit was apparent at 12 months (37% vs. 34%), but a separation of the curves at 36 months suggested a possible OS benefit with nivolumab, Dr. Antonia noted, adding that the difference was “obviously small” and requires “a lot more work related to that.”

Subgroup analyses in that study also were “perhaps revealing” in that patients without liver metastases derived benefit (hazard ratio, 0.75), as did those who were platinum resistant (HR, 0.71), he said.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study showed that the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab also has activity in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients in the relapsed setting, and pooled data from that study and KEYNOTE-158, which included both PD-L1–positive and –negative patients, showed promising antitumor activity and durable responses with pembrolizumab. The pooled data, as presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 19%, including complete and partial response rates of 2% and 17%, respectively.

“And there appears to be, at least preliminarily, some durability to the responses,” he said, noting that 9 of 16 patients experienced at least an 18-month response. “Progression-free survival was 2 months, and overall survival was 7.7 months.”

The IMpower133 study showed significantly longer OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (HR, 0.70). Some late merging of the survival curves was apparent, but the data haven’t matured.

“Hopefully there will be some evidence of a lifting of the tail of the survival curve with some durability of responsiveness like we see in non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

When it comes to “making the next leap” toward improved clinical efficacy with immunotherapy for SCLC, “we need to think about three general categories of how it is that tumors evade rejection by the immune system,” he said.

One category involves SCLC patients with an insufficient numbers of T cells generated within the lymphoid compartment; in those patients, an immunotherapeutic approach directed at the tumor microenvironment won’t lead to a response. Another category includes patients who generate enough T cells within the lymphoid compartment but in whom those cells aren’t driven into the tumor parenchyma. The third involves those whose T cells may make it into the tumor parenchyma, but are inhibited in the tumor microenvironment, he explained.

Strategies to increase the number of T cells generated in the lymphoid compartment – such as vaccines, radiation, adoptive cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors, to name a few – were a focus of research efforts more than a decade ago, but the pendulum swung more toward addressing the tumor microenvironment.

“I think that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, and we do need to develop combination immunotherapies paying attention to the lymphoid compartment as well as the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Antonia said, listing these “guiding principles” for the development of effective SCLC immunotherapy:

• Combination immunotherapy is necessary.
• Mechanisms exploited by SCLC to evade immune-mediated rejection need to be identified.
• Inclusion of strategies for driving tumor-reactive T cells into the tumor microenvironment should be considered.
• PD-1 blockade should continue.
• Biomarkers should be identified for selecting patients for tumor microenvironment–targeted agents.

Clinical and molecular biomarkers

Indeed, there is much work to do with respect to biomarkers, but their use in the selection of SCLC patients for immunotherapy is “finally starting to evolve and evolve more rapidly,” according to Lauren Averett Byers, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Numerous groups are identifying biomarkers for both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, Dr. Byers said, noting that “this has been a really incredible time for those of us who take care of small cell lung cancer patients.”

“It’s been many decades since we’ve had a new option for our patients ... and so I think with the landmark clinical trials ... we really do have a new option in terms of a new standard of care,” she said of immunotherapy. “But I think we also recognize that there is significant room for further improvement.”

Many patients don’t respond or don’t respond as well as hoped, and therefore an “incredible need” exists for personalized biomarker-driven therapy for SCLC and its distinct molecular subsets, she said.

Emerging and potential biomarkers and other factors to guide treatment decisions include TMB, PD-L1, clinical history/duration of response in immunotherapy-naive relapsed patients, gene expression profile–driven SCLC subgroup identification, and DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors such as Chk1, PARP, and Wee1 inhibitors.

TMB, as described by Dr. Antonia with respect to the CheckMate 032 findings of improved outcomes in those in the highest TMB tertile, is one potentially helpful biomarker for response.

“In thinking about how we apply this, though, we have to think about what we’re deciding between,” Dr. Byers said, explaining that the responses in patients with medium or low TMB – between 0% and 10% in most studies in the relapsed SCLC setting – aren’t that different from those seen with other treatment options.

“Currently we’re not routinely ordering TMB to decide on immunotherapy because there are still patients that can be as likely to benefit from immunotherapy as they are from chemotherapy, and potentially with more durable responses,” she said. “But certainly, it is a way to potentially identify patients where immunotherapy alone may have very high rates of response.”

IMPower133 showed no difference in hazard ratios for death based on TMB detected in the blood in SCLC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, but “this still supports using the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination broadly, and also emphasizes the need for an improved – and probably expanded – look at other biomarkers that may help predict response,” she said.

PD-L1 appears to have a role as a biomarker in this setting as well, she said, citing the KEYNOTE-028 findings of numerically improved responses in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab.

“We should be looking at PD-L1 levels, but we need further information to know how we might use this,” she said.

In immunotherapy-naive patients who relapse after front-line chemotherapy, the most important biomarker is clinical history and duration of response to platinum, which helps guide second-line treatment, Dr. Byers said.

“I think there’s consensus among most of us that patients who have platinum-refractory disease and are unlikely to respond to further platinum therapy or other chemotherapy agents are patients who really should get immunotherapy,” she added, explaining that the available data suggest there is no cross-resistance and that there may actually be enhanced benefit with immunotherapy in such patients.

Using molecular data to identify SCLC subtypes based on gene expression profiles is another area of interest, she said.

In fact, new data presented at the WCLC conference by Carl Gay, MD, PhD, a former fellow in her lab and now a junior faculty member at MD Anderson, identified four specific SCLC subgroups; three were driven by activation of the known transcription factors ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, but an additional “inflamed” group without expression of those three transcription factors was also identified.

That “triple-negative” group had significantly higher expression of human leukocyte antigen and very high T-cell activation with expression of multiple immune checkpoints representing candidate targets, she said, adding: “We hypothesize that this group may be the group in SCLC that gets relatively greater benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.”

DDR is also garnering attention.

“Since there was this signal that [patients with] DNA damage ... tend to be more sensitive to immunotherapy ... we looked at whether or not targeted agents that prevented repair of DNA damage and induced increased levels of DNA damage ... might activate the innate immune system through the STING pathway and if that could be a potential approach to enhance immunotherapy response,” she said.

The approach showed promise in cell lines in a mouse model and also in an immunocompetent SCLC mouse model.

“It was really interesting to see how these drugs might potentially enhance response to immunotherapy,” Dr. Byers said, noting that the same phenomenon has been seen with PARP inhibitors in breast and colon cancer models and in other solid tumors.

“So I think that there is something there, and fortunately we’re now at a point now where we can start looking at some of these combinations in the clinic across many different cancer types,” she said. “I think we’ll be learning a lot more about what’s happening with these patients.”

At present, however, “there is more that we don’t know about the immune landscape of small cell lung cancer than what we do know, and that’s a real opportunity where, over the next several years, we will gain a deeper understanding ... that will direct where we’re going in terms of translating that back into the clinic.”
 

The SCLC immune microenvironment

The immune microenvironment will be an integral part of that journey, according to Dr. Liu.

“We consider small cell lung cancer – a carcinogen-associated cancer – to be one that has a high somatic mutation rate, but what we’ve learned over the past few years is that tumor neoantigens are certainly necessary – but not sufficient,” he said, noting that mutational burden represents the potential for immune-mediated antitumor responses, but is not a guarantee.

“As a group, we need to develop strategies to overcome the powerful immunosuppressive microenvironment in small cell lung cancer,” he added.

Lessons learned from studying PD-L1 provided the first insight into the importance of the immune microenvironment: PD-L1 expression, as measured by tumor proportion score (TPS) holds predictive value in non–small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, but the SCLC story is much more complex, he said.

Only 18% of SCLC patients in CheckMate 032 were PD-L1–positive, and “paradoxically, we see responses were better in the PD-L1–negative group,” he explained. The response rates for nivolumab/ipilimumab were 32% in the PD-L1–negative group and 10% in the PD-L1–positive group.

Recent findings regarding the use of the combined positive score (CPS), which unlike the TPS for determining PD-L1 status, includes PD-L1 expression on stromal cells, are also notable. In a phase 2 study of maintenance pembrolizumab in SCLC, for example, 3 of 30 patients were PD-L1 positive by TPS, and 8 of 20 were positive by CPS.

“And that did predict outcomes: We see a higher response rate [38% vs. 8%], better PFS [6.5 vs. 1.3 months], and better overall survival [13 months vs. 8 months] in pretreated small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Similarly, in KEYNOTE-158 when looking at pembrolizumab in previously treated SCLC, the overall response was modest at 18.7%, and median PFS was 2.0 months.

“Again, breaking it down by CPS, we see a different story,” Dr. Liu said. “We see better outcomes in the PD-L1–positive [group] if you’re factoring in expression in the microenvironment.” When assessed by CPS, 39% of patients were PD-L1 positive; those patients, when compared with PD-L1–negative patients, had improved 12-month PFS (28.5% vs. 8.2%, respectively), 12-month OS (53.3% vs. 30.7%), and median OS (14.9 vs. 5.9 months).

Checkpoint expression in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) also has been shown to vary when compared with tumor expression. SCLC tissue microarrays in a study presented at ASCO 2017 (Rivalland et al. Abstract 8569), for example, showed that tumor expression versus TIL expression of PD-L1, TIMS3, and LAG3 was 18% vs. 67%, 0% vs. 59%, and 0% vs. 45%, respectively, and the TIL expression correlated with survival, Dr. Liu said.

“So when we consider things like PD-L1 expression, looking at a narrow scope of just the tumor is not enough. We need to consider the stromal cells, the microenvironment,” he said. “And even larger than that, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is but a fraction of powerful, dynamic, immunosuppressive factors in small cell lung cancer.

“All of these will need to be accounted for in various patients.”

These findings and others, like those from a recent study showing differentially expressed genes and pathways in the stromal cells of longer- versus shorter-term survivors, raise questions about whether the lymphoid compartment can be manipulated in SCLC to improve immune responses using the strategies discussed by Dr. Antonia and Dr. Byers, he said.

In “cold” tumor phenotypes, one hypothesis has tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) preventing infiltration of the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which raises the possibility that TAMs are a therapeutic target, he said.

“At this meeting and others we’ve heard of lurbinectedin as a possible active drug in SCLC,” he said, noting that preclinical data also demonstrate that lurbinectedin targets TAMs. Perhaps the agent’s future role will be that of an immune modulator rather than a cytotoxic agent, he suggested.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are another potential immunomodulatory target, but the problem is their redundancy and the lack of good models to identify which ones are active, he said.

“Myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSC] are another important part of the microenvironment and could be potential targets to restore immune responses,” he added.

But many questions remain, he said.

For example: How can we overcome an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment? Can we inhibit arginine or adenosine? Can we restore interleukin-2? Can we target things like LAG3? Can we eliminate the Treg and MDSC population? Which strategies are appropriate? Are they the same in immunotherapy-naive vs. immunotherapy-experienced patients – is intrinsic resistance the same as acquired resistance? Are they the same in each patient, or even throughout each tumor?

And importantly, “how will we choose between these various molecules we have?” he asked.

“At this point we’ve learned that empiric strategies are unlikely to yield meaningful results. We’ve been through empiric strategies in SCLC for years, and it doesn’t work because of that heterogeneity – unless there’s a universal underlying mechanism,” he said. “I think more than likely the studies have to be enriched for the right patients; we need to apply everything we’ve learned from non–small cell lung cancer and apply the principles of targeted therapy to immunotherapy – and that requires the identification of predictive biomarkers.”

It’s a challenging task in SCLC, but “it still needs to be done,” he said, noting that the lack of “perfect models” means relying on cell lines in surgical specimens.

However, while surgical tissue banks are an important resource, there is doubt about whether the specimens are representative of patients in the clinic, he noted.

“At best need to confirm what we know; at worst we may need to rework a lot of the underlying maps,” he said.

Therefore, future SCLC studies “are simply going to need more biopsies,” and that is yet another challenge, he added, explaining that the largely central tumors and fairly aggressive, rapid course of disease in SCLC make it difficult to obtain meaningful biopsies.

“But it’s the only way to move forward,” he said. “As a community we have to stand up and obtain more biopsies and tissue for in-depth analysis.”

As much as that will advance the field, the greatest impact for SCLC will be through prevention, including by smoking cessation, he added.

“Our overarching goal for small cell lung cancer remains achieving durable disease control and long-term survival for our patients,” Dr. Liu said. “That certainly is a lofty goal, but those are probably the only goals worth having.”

Dr. Liu, Dr. Byers, and Dr. Antonia reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.




 

BARCELONA – Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate activity in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but achieving more durable disease control and better survival requires improved understanding of biomarkers and the immune microenvironment.

That was the overarching message from experts speaking at a minisymposium on immunotherapy in SCLC at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“None of us are disputing that immunotherapy is clearly active in this space, but I think that we can all agree that the outcomes have been somewhat modest in an unselected population, and there is certainly room to grow,” said Dr. Stephen V. Liu, MD. “Moving forward, while we will look for any advances we can, we also feel strongly that these incremental gains are probably not enough.”
 

The state of the art

Hints that immunotherapy could be clinically efficacious in SCLC emerged in 2016 when interim findings from the CheckMate 032 study showed that the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, either alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab, had efficacy in recurrent SCLC. Efficacy was seen regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, which is “a good thing since PD-L1 is expressed much less frequently in SCLC than in non-SCLC,” Scott J. Antonia, MD, of Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., who was the first author on that study, said during the symposium.

A particularly encouraging finding was that responders included patients with platinum-refractory SCLC for whom treatments in the relapse setting are lacking, Dr Antonia said.

An exploratory analysis of CheckMate 032 also showed better responses among patients in the highest tumor mutation burden (TMB) tertile, especially in the combination therapy group, leading to the hypothesis-generating finding that TMB may predict response, he said.

Another suggestion of nivolumab’s potential came from the randomized CheckMate 331 study comparing the checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC patients. As reported in 2018 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), no overall survival (OS) benefit was apparent at 12 months (37% vs. 34%), but a separation of the curves at 36 months suggested a possible OS benefit with nivolumab, Dr. Antonia noted, adding that the difference was “obviously small” and requires “a lot more work related to that.”

Subgroup analyses in that study also were “perhaps revealing” in that patients without liver metastases derived benefit (hazard ratio, 0.75), as did those who were platinum resistant (HR, 0.71), he said.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study showed that the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab also has activity in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients in the relapsed setting, and pooled data from that study and KEYNOTE-158, which included both PD-L1–positive and –negative patients, showed promising antitumor activity and durable responses with pembrolizumab. The pooled data, as presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 19%, including complete and partial response rates of 2% and 17%, respectively.

“And there appears to be, at least preliminarily, some durability to the responses,” he said, noting that 9 of 16 patients experienced at least an 18-month response. “Progression-free survival was 2 months, and overall survival was 7.7 months.”

The IMpower133 study showed significantly longer OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (HR, 0.70). Some late merging of the survival curves was apparent, but the data haven’t matured.

“Hopefully there will be some evidence of a lifting of the tail of the survival curve with some durability of responsiveness like we see in non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

When it comes to “making the next leap” toward improved clinical efficacy with immunotherapy for SCLC, “we need to think about three general categories of how it is that tumors evade rejection by the immune system,” he said.

One category involves SCLC patients with an insufficient numbers of T cells generated within the lymphoid compartment; in those patients, an immunotherapeutic approach directed at the tumor microenvironment won’t lead to a response. Another category includes patients who generate enough T cells within the lymphoid compartment but in whom those cells aren’t driven into the tumor parenchyma. The third involves those whose T cells may make it into the tumor parenchyma, but are inhibited in the tumor microenvironment, he explained.

Strategies to increase the number of T cells generated in the lymphoid compartment – such as vaccines, radiation, adoptive cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors, to name a few – were a focus of research efforts more than a decade ago, but the pendulum swung more toward addressing the tumor microenvironment.

“I think that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, and we do need to develop combination immunotherapies paying attention to the lymphoid compartment as well as the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Antonia said, listing these “guiding principles” for the development of effective SCLC immunotherapy:

• Combination immunotherapy is necessary.
• Mechanisms exploited by SCLC to evade immune-mediated rejection need to be identified.
• Inclusion of strategies for driving tumor-reactive T cells into the tumor microenvironment should be considered.
• PD-1 blockade should continue.
• Biomarkers should be identified for selecting patients for tumor microenvironment–targeted agents.

Clinical and molecular biomarkers

Indeed, there is much work to do with respect to biomarkers, but their use in the selection of SCLC patients for immunotherapy is “finally starting to evolve and evolve more rapidly,” according to Lauren Averett Byers, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Numerous groups are identifying biomarkers for both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, Dr. Byers said, noting that “this has been a really incredible time for those of us who take care of small cell lung cancer patients.”

“It’s been many decades since we’ve had a new option for our patients ... and so I think with the landmark clinical trials ... we really do have a new option in terms of a new standard of care,” she said of immunotherapy. “But I think we also recognize that there is significant room for further improvement.”

Many patients don’t respond or don’t respond as well as hoped, and therefore an “incredible need” exists for personalized biomarker-driven therapy for SCLC and its distinct molecular subsets, she said.

Emerging and potential biomarkers and other factors to guide treatment decisions include TMB, PD-L1, clinical history/duration of response in immunotherapy-naive relapsed patients, gene expression profile–driven SCLC subgroup identification, and DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors such as Chk1, PARP, and Wee1 inhibitors.

TMB, as described by Dr. Antonia with respect to the CheckMate 032 findings of improved outcomes in those in the highest TMB tertile, is one potentially helpful biomarker for response.

“In thinking about how we apply this, though, we have to think about what we’re deciding between,” Dr. Byers said, explaining that the responses in patients with medium or low TMB – between 0% and 10% in most studies in the relapsed SCLC setting – aren’t that different from those seen with other treatment options.

“Currently we’re not routinely ordering TMB to decide on immunotherapy because there are still patients that can be as likely to benefit from immunotherapy as they are from chemotherapy, and potentially with more durable responses,” she said. “But certainly, it is a way to potentially identify patients where immunotherapy alone may have very high rates of response.”

IMPower133 showed no difference in hazard ratios for death based on TMB detected in the blood in SCLC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, but “this still supports using the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination broadly, and also emphasizes the need for an improved – and probably expanded – look at other biomarkers that may help predict response,” she said.

PD-L1 appears to have a role as a biomarker in this setting as well, she said, citing the KEYNOTE-028 findings of numerically improved responses in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab.

“We should be looking at PD-L1 levels, but we need further information to know how we might use this,” she said.

In immunotherapy-naive patients who relapse after front-line chemotherapy, the most important biomarker is clinical history and duration of response to platinum, which helps guide second-line treatment, Dr. Byers said.

“I think there’s consensus among most of us that patients who have platinum-refractory disease and are unlikely to respond to further platinum therapy or other chemotherapy agents are patients who really should get immunotherapy,” she added, explaining that the available data suggest there is no cross-resistance and that there may actually be enhanced benefit with immunotherapy in such patients.

Using molecular data to identify SCLC subtypes based on gene expression profiles is another area of interest, she said.

In fact, new data presented at the WCLC conference by Carl Gay, MD, PhD, a former fellow in her lab and now a junior faculty member at MD Anderson, identified four specific SCLC subgroups; three were driven by activation of the known transcription factors ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, but an additional “inflamed” group without expression of those three transcription factors was also identified.

That “triple-negative” group had significantly higher expression of human leukocyte antigen and very high T-cell activation with expression of multiple immune checkpoints representing candidate targets, she said, adding: “We hypothesize that this group may be the group in SCLC that gets relatively greater benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.”

DDR is also garnering attention.

“Since there was this signal that [patients with] DNA damage ... tend to be more sensitive to immunotherapy ... we looked at whether or not targeted agents that prevented repair of DNA damage and induced increased levels of DNA damage ... might activate the innate immune system through the STING pathway and if that could be a potential approach to enhance immunotherapy response,” she said.

The approach showed promise in cell lines in a mouse model and also in an immunocompetent SCLC mouse model.

“It was really interesting to see how these drugs might potentially enhance response to immunotherapy,” Dr. Byers said, noting that the same phenomenon has been seen with PARP inhibitors in breast and colon cancer models and in other solid tumors.

“So I think that there is something there, and fortunately we’re now at a point now where we can start looking at some of these combinations in the clinic across many different cancer types,” she said. “I think we’ll be learning a lot more about what’s happening with these patients.”

At present, however, “there is more that we don’t know about the immune landscape of small cell lung cancer than what we do know, and that’s a real opportunity where, over the next several years, we will gain a deeper understanding ... that will direct where we’re going in terms of translating that back into the clinic.”
 

The SCLC immune microenvironment

The immune microenvironment will be an integral part of that journey, according to Dr. Liu.

“We consider small cell lung cancer – a carcinogen-associated cancer – to be one that has a high somatic mutation rate, but what we’ve learned over the past few years is that tumor neoantigens are certainly necessary – but not sufficient,” he said, noting that mutational burden represents the potential for immune-mediated antitumor responses, but is not a guarantee.

“As a group, we need to develop strategies to overcome the powerful immunosuppressive microenvironment in small cell lung cancer,” he added.

Lessons learned from studying PD-L1 provided the first insight into the importance of the immune microenvironment: PD-L1 expression, as measured by tumor proportion score (TPS) holds predictive value in non–small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, but the SCLC story is much more complex, he said.

Only 18% of SCLC patients in CheckMate 032 were PD-L1–positive, and “paradoxically, we see responses were better in the PD-L1–negative group,” he explained. The response rates for nivolumab/ipilimumab were 32% in the PD-L1–negative group and 10% in the PD-L1–positive group.

Recent findings regarding the use of the combined positive score (CPS), which unlike the TPS for determining PD-L1 status, includes PD-L1 expression on stromal cells, are also notable. In a phase 2 study of maintenance pembrolizumab in SCLC, for example, 3 of 30 patients were PD-L1 positive by TPS, and 8 of 20 were positive by CPS.

“And that did predict outcomes: We see a higher response rate [38% vs. 8%], better PFS [6.5 vs. 1.3 months], and better overall survival [13 months vs. 8 months] in pretreated small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Similarly, in KEYNOTE-158 when looking at pembrolizumab in previously treated SCLC, the overall response was modest at 18.7%, and median PFS was 2.0 months.

“Again, breaking it down by CPS, we see a different story,” Dr. Liu said. “We see better outcomes in the PD-L1–positive [group] if you’re factoring in expression in the microenvironment.” When assessed by CPS, 39% of patients were PD-L1 positive; those patients, when compared with PD-L1–negative patients, had improved 12-month PFS (28.5% vs. 8.2%, respectively), 12-month OS (53.3% vs. 30.7%), and median OS (14.9 vs. 5.9 months).

Checkpoint expression in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) also has been shown to vary when compared with tumor expression. SCLC tissue microarrays in a study presented at ASCO 2017 (Rivalland et al. Abstract 8569), for example, showed that tumor expression versus TIL expression of PD-L1, TIMS3, and LAG3 was 18% vs. 67%, 0% vs. 59%, and 0% vs. 45%, respectively, and the TIL expression correlated with survival, Dr. Liu said.

“So when we consider things like PD-L1 expression, looking at a narrow scope of just the tumor is not enough. We need to consider the stromal cells, the microenvironment,” he said. “And even larger than that, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is but a fraction of powerful, dynamic, immunosuppressive factors in small cell lung cancer.

“All of these will need to be accounted for in various patients.”

These findings and others, like those from a recent study showing differentially expressed genes and pathways in the stromal cells of longer- versus shorter-term survivors, raise questions about whether the lymphoid compartment can be manipulated in SCLC to improve immune responses using the strategies discussed by Dr. Antonia and Dr. Byers, he said.

In “cold” tumor phenotypes, one hypothesis has tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) preventing infiltration of the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which raises the possibility that TAMs are a therapeutic target, he said.

“At this meeting and others we’ve heard of lurbinectedin as a possible active drug in SCLC,” he said, noting that preclinical data also demonstrate that lurbinectedin targets TAMs. Perhaps the agent’s future role will be that of an immune modulator rather than a cytotoxic agent, he suggested.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are another potential immunomodulatory target, but the problem is their redundancy and the lack of good models to identify which ones are active, he said.

“Myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSC] are another important part of the microenvironment and could be potential targets to restore immune responses,” he added.

But many questions remain, he said.

For example: How can we overcome an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment? Can we inhibit arginine or adenosine? Can we restore interleukin-2? Can we target things like LAG3? Can we eliminate the Treg and MDSC population? Which strategies are appropriate? Are they the same in immunotherapy-naive vs. immunotherapy-experienced patients – is intrinsic resistance the same as acquired resistance? Are they the same in each patient, or even throughout each tumor?

And importantly, “how will we choose between these various molecules we have?” he asked.

“At this point we’ve learned that empiric strategies are unlikely to yield meaningful results. We’ve been through empiric strategies in SCLC for years, and it doesn’t work because of that heterogeneity – unless there’s a universal underlying mechanism,” he said. “I think more than likely the studies have to be enriched for the right patients; we need to apply everything we’ve learned from non–small cell lung cancer and apply the principles of targeted therapy to immunotherapy – and that requires the identification of predictive biomarkers.”

It’s a challenging task in SCLC, but “it still needs to be done,” he said, noting that the lack of “perfect models” means relying on cell lines in surgical specimens.

However, while surgical tissue banks are an important resource, there is doubt about whether the specimens are representative of patients in the clinic, he noted.

“At best need to confirm what we know; at worst we may need to rework a lot of the underlying maps,” he said.

Therefore, future SCLC studies “are simply going to need more biopsies,” and that is yet another challenge, he added, explaining that the largely central tumors and fairly aggressive, rapid course of disease in SCLC make it difficult to obtain meaningful biopsies.

“But it’s the only way to move forward,” he said. “As a community we have to stand up and obtain more biopsies and tissue for in-depth analysis.”

As much as that will advance the field, the greatest impact for SCLC will be through prevention, including by smoking cessation, he added.

“Our overarching goal for small cell lung cancer remains achieving durable disease control and long-term survival for our patients,” Dr. Liu said. “That certainly is a lofty goal, but those are probably the only goals worth having.”

Dr. Liu, Dr. Byers, and Dr. Antonia reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.




 

BARCELONA – Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate activity in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but achieving more durable disease control and better survival requires improved understanding of biomarkers and the immune microenvironment.

That was the overarching message from experts speaking at a minisymposium on immunotherapy in SCLC at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“None of us are disputing that immunotherapy is clearly active in this space, but I think that we can all agree that the outcomes have been somewhat modest in an unselected population, and there is certainly room to grow,” said Dr. Stephen V. Liu, MD. “Moving forward, while we will look for any advances we can, we also feel strongly that these incremental gains are probably not enough.”
 

The state of the art

Hints that immunotherapy could be clinically efficacious in SCLC emerged in 2016 when interim findings from the CheckMate 032 study showed that the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, either alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab, had efficacy in recurrent SCLC. Efficacy was seen regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, which is “a good thing since PD-L1 is expressed much less frequently in SCLC than in non-SCLC,” Scott J. Antonia, MD, of Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., who was the first author on that study, said during the symposium.

A particularly encouraging finding was that responders included patients with platinum-refractory SCLC for whom treatments in the relapse setting are lacking, Dr Antonia said.

An exploratory analysis of CheckMate 032 also showed better responses among patients in the highest tumor mutation burden (TMB) tertile, especially in the combination therapy group, leading to the hypothesis-generating finding that TMB may predict response, he said.

Another suggestion of nivolumab’s potential came from the randomized CheckMate 331 study comparing the checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC patients. As reported in 2018 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), no overall survival (OS) benefit was apparent at 12 months (37% vs. 34%), but a separation of the curves at 36 months suggested a possible OS benefit with nivolumab, Dr. Antonia noted, adding that the difference was “obviously small” and requires “a lot more work related to that.”

Subgroup analyses in that study also were “perhaps revealing” in that patients without liver metastases derived benefit (hazard ratio, 0.75), as did those who were platinum resistant (HR, 0.71), he said.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study showed that the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab also has activity in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients in the relapsed setting, and pooled data from that study and KEYNOTE-158, which included both PD-L1–positive and –negative patients, showed promising antitumor activity and durable responses with pembrolizumab. The pooled data, as presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 19%, including complete and partial response rates of 2% and 17%, respectively.

“And there appears to be, at least preliminarily, some durability to the responses,” he said, noting that 9 of 16 patients experienced at least an 18-month response. “Progression-free survival was 2 months, and overall survival was 7.7 months.”

The IMpower133 study showed significantly longer OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (HR, 0.70). Some late merging of the survival curves was apparent, but the data haven’t matured.

“Hopefully there will be some evidence of a lifting of the tail of the survival curve with some durability of responsiveness like we see in non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

When it comes to “making the next leap” toward improved clinical efficacy with immunotherapy for SCLC, “we need to think about three general categories of how it is that tumors evade rejection by the immune system,” he said.

One category involves SCLC patients with an insufficient numbers of T cells generated within the lymphoid compartment; in those patients, an immunotherapeutic approach directed at the tumor microenvironment won’t lead to a response. Another category includes patients who generate enough T cells within the lymphoid compartment but in whom those cells aren’t driven into the tumor parenchyma. The third involves those whose T cells may make it into the tumor parenchyma, but are inhibited in the tumor microenvironment, he explained.

Strategies to increase the number of T cells generated in the lymphoid compartment – such as vaccines, radiation, adoptive cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors, to name a few – were a focus of research efforts more than a decade ago, but the pendulum swung more toward addressing the tumor microenvironment.

“I think that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, and we do need to develop combination immunotherapies paying attention to the lymphoid compartment as well as the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Antonia said, listing these “guiding principles” for the development of effective SCLC immunotherapy:

• Combination immunotherapy is necessary.
• Mechanisms exploited by SCLC to evade immune-mediated rejection need to be identified.
• Inclusion of strategies for driving tumor-reactive T cells into the tumor microenvironment should be considered.
• PD-1 blockade should continue.
• Biomarkers should be identified for selecting patients for tumor microenvironment–targeted agents.

Clinical and molecular biomarkers

Indeed, there is much work to do with respect to biomarkers, but their use in the selection of SCLC patients for immunotherapy is “finally starting to evolve and evolve more rapidly,” according to Lauren Averett Byers, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Numerous groups are identifying biomarkers for both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, Dr. Byers said, noting that “this has been a really incredible time for those of us who take care of small cell lung cancer patients.”

“It’s been many decades since we’ve had a new option for our patients ... and so I think with the landmark clinical trials ... we really do have a new option in terms of a new standard of care,” she said of immunotherapy. “But I think we also recognize that there is significant room for further improvement.”

Many patients don’t respond or don’t respond as well as hoped, and therefore an “incredible need” exists for personalized biomarker-driven therapy for SCLC and its distinct molecular subsets, she said.

Emerging and potential biomarkers and other factors to guide treatment decisions include TMB, PD-L1, clinical history/duration of response in immunotherapy-naive relapsed patients, gene expression profile–driven SCLC subgroup identification, and DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors such as Chk1, PARP, and Wee1 inhibitors.

TMB, as described by Dr. Antonia with respect to the CheckMate 032 findings of improved outcomes in those in the highest TMB tertile, is one potentially helpful biomarker for response.

“In thinking about how we apply this, though, we have to think about what we’re deciding between,” Dr. Byers said, explaining that the responses in patients with medium or low TMB – between 0% and 10% in most studies in the relapsed SCLC setting – aren’t that different from those seen with other treatment options.

“Currently we’re not routinely ordering TMB to decide on immunotherapy because there are still patients that can be as likely to benefit from immunotherapy as they are from chemotherapy, and potentially with more durable responses,” she said. “But certainly, it is a way to potentially identify patients where immunotherapy alone may have very high rates of response.”

IMPower133 showed no difference in hazard ratios for death based on TMB detected in the blood in SCLC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, but “this still supports using the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination broadly, and also emphasizes the need for an improved – and probably expanded – look at other biomarkers that may help predict response,” she said.

PD-L1 appears to have a role as a biomarker in this setting as well, she said, citing the KEYNOTE-028 findings of numerically improved responses in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab.

“We should be looking at PD-L1 levels, but we need further information to know how we might use this,” she said.

In immunotherapy-naive patients who relapse after front-line chemotherapy, the most important biomarker is clinical history and duration of response to platinum, which helps guide second-line treatment, Dr. Byers said.

“I think there’s consensus among most of us that patients who have platinum-refractory disease and are unlikely to respond to further platinum therapy or other chemotherapy agents are patients who really should get immunotherapy,” she added, explaining that the available data suggest there is no cross-resistance and that there may actually be enhanced benefit with immunotherapy in such patients.

Using molecular data to identify SCLC subtypes based on gene expression profiles is another area of interest, she said.

In fact, new data presented at the WCLC conference by Carl Gay, MD, PhD, a former fellow in her lab and now a junior faculty member at MD Anderson, identified four specific SCLC subgroups; three were driven by activation of the known transcription factors ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, but an additional “inflamed” group without expression of those three transcription factors was also identified.

That “triple-negative” group had significantly higher expression of human leukocyte antigen and very high T-cell activation with expression of multiple immune checkpoints representing candidate targets, she said, adding: “We hypothesize that this group may be the group in SCLC that gets relatively greater benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.”

DDR is also garnering attention.

“Since there was this signal that [patients with] DNA damage ... tend to be more sensitive to immunotherapy ... we looked at whether or not targeted agents that prevented repair of DNA damage and induced increased levels of DNA damage ... might activate the innate immune system through the STING pathway and if that could be a potential approach to enhance immunotherapy response,” she said.

The approach showed promise in cell lines in a mouse model and also in an immunocompetent SCLC mouse model.

“It was really interesting to see how these drugs might potentially enhance response to immunotherapy,” Dr. Byers said, noting that the same phenomenon has been seen with PARP inhibitors in breast and colon cancer models and in other solid tumors.

“So I think that there is something there, and fortunately we’re now at a point now where we can start looking at some of these combinations in the clinic across many different cancer types,” she said. “I think we’ll be learning a lot more about what’s happening with these patients.”

At present, however, “there is more that we don’t know about the immune landscape of small cell lung cancer than what we do know, and that’s a real opportunity where, over the next several years, we will gain a deeper understanding ... that will direct where we’re going in terms of translating that back into the clinic.”
 

The SCLC immune microenvironment

The immune microenvironment will be an integral part of that journey, according to Dr. Liu.

“We consider small cell lung cancer – a carcinogen-associated cancer – to be one that has a high somatic mutation rate, but what we’ve learned over the past few years is that tumor neoantigens are certainly necessary – but not sufficient,” he said, noting that mutational burden represents the potential for immune-mediated antitumor responses, but is not a guarantee.

“As a group, we need to develop strategies to overcome the powerful immunosuppressive microenvironment in small cell lung cancer,” he added.

Lessons learned from studying PD-L1 provided the first insight into the importance of the immune microenvironment: PD-L1 expression, as measured by tumor proportion score (TPS) holds predictive value in non–small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, but the SCLC story is much more complex, he said.

Only 18% of SCLC patients in CheckMate 032 were PD-L1–positive, and “paradoxically, we see responses were better in the PD-L1–negative group,” he explained. The response rates for nivolumab/ipilimumab were 32% in the PD-L1–negative group and 10% in the PD-L1–positive group.

Recent findings regarding the use of the combined positive score (CPS), which unlike the TPS for determining PD-L1 status, includes PD-L1 expression on stromal cells, are also notable. In a phase 2 study of maintenance pembrolizumab in SCLC, for example, 3 of 30 patients were PD-L1 positive by TPS, and 8 of 20 were positive by CPS.

“And that did predict outcomes: We see a higher response rate [38% vs. 8%], better PFS [6.5 vs. 1.3 months], and better overall survival [13 months vs. 8 months] in pretreated small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Similarly, in KEYNOTE-158 when looking at pembrolizumab in previously treated SCLC, the overall response was modest at 18.7%, and median PFS was 2.0 months.

“Again, breaking it down by CPS, we see a different story,” Dr. Liu said. “We see better outcomes in the PD-L1–positive [group] if you’re factoring in expression in the microenvironment.” When assessed by CPS, 39% of patients were PD-L1 positive; those patients, when compared with PD-L1–negative patients, had improved 12-month PFS (28.5% vs. 8.2%, respectively), 12-month OS (53.3% vs. 30.7%), and median OS (14.9 vs. 5.9 months).

Checkpoint expression in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) also has been shown to vary when compared with tumor expression. SCLC tissue microarrays in a study presented at ASCO 2017 (Rivalland et al. Abstract 8569), for example, showed that tumor expression versus TIL expression of PD-L1, TIMS3, and LAG3 was 18% vs. 67%, 0% vs. 59%, and 0% vs. 45%, respectively, and the TIL expression correlated with survival, Dr. Liu said.

“So when we consider things like PD-L1 expression, looking at a narrow scope of just the tumor is not enough. We need to consider the stromal cells, the microenvironment,” he said. “And even larger than that, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is but a fraction of powerful, dynamic, immunosuppressive factors in small cell lung cancer.

“All of these will need to be accounted for in various patients.”

These findings and others, like those from a recent study showing differentially expressed genes and pathways in the stromal cells of longer- versus shorter-term survivors, raise questions about whether the lymphoid compartment can be manipulated in SCLC to improve immune responses using the strategies discussed by Dr. Antonia and Dr. Byers, he said.

In “cold” tumor phenotypes, one hypothesis has tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) preventing infiltration of the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which raises the possibility that TAMs are a therapeutic target, he said.

“At this meeting and others we’ve heard of lurbinectedin as a possible active drug in SCLC,” he said, noting that preclinical data also demonstrate that lurbinectedin targets TAMs. Perhaps the agent’s future role will be that of an immune modulator rather than a cytotoxic agent, he suggested.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are another potential immunomodulatory target, but the problem is their redundancy and the lack of good models to identify which ones are active, he said.

“Myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSC] are another important part of the microenvironment and could be potential targets to restore immune responses,” he added.

But many questions remain, he said.

For example: How can we overcome an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment? Can we inhibit arginine or adenosine? Can we restore interleukin-2? Can we target things like LAG3? Can we eliminate the Treg and MDSC population? Which strategies are appropriate? Are they the same in immunotherapy-naive vs. immunotherapy-experienced patients – is intrinsic resistance the same as acquired resistance? Are they the same in each patient, or even throughout each tumor?

And importantly, “how will we choose between these various molecules we have?” he asked.

“At this point we’ve learned that empiric strategies are unlikely to yield meaningful results. We’ve been through empiric strategies in SCLC for years, and it doesn’t work because of that heterogeneity – unless there’s a universal underlying mechanism,” he said. “I think more than likely the studies have to be enriched for the right patients; we need to apply everything we’ve learned from non–small cell lung cancer and apply the principles of targeted therapy to immunotherapy – and that requires the identification of predictive biomarkers.”

It’s a challenging task in SCLC, but “it still needs to be done,” he said, noting that the lack of “perfect models” means relying on cell lines in surgical specimens.

However, while surgical tissue banks are an important resource, there is doubt about whether the specimens are representative of patients in the clinic, he noted.

“At best need to confirm what we know; at worst we may need to rework a lot of the underlying maps,” he said.

Therefore, future SCLC studies “are simply going to need more biopsies,” and that is yet another challenge, he added, explaining that the largely central tumors and fairly aggressive, rapid course of disease in SCLC make it difficult to obtain meaningful biopsies.

“But it’s the only way to move forward,” he said. “As a community we have to stand up and obtain more biopsies and tissue for in-depth analysis.”

As much as that will advance the field, the greatest impact for SCLC will be through prevention, including by smoking cessation, he added.

“Our overarching goal for small cell lung cancer remains achieving durable disease control and long-term survival for our patients,” Dr. Liu said. “That certainly is a lofty goal, but those are probably the only goals worth having.”

Dr. Liu, Dr. Byers, and Dr. Antonia reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.




 

BARCELONA – First-line flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was safe and showed encouraging clinical activity both in general and in patients with poor performance status and comorbidities in the multicenter CheckMate 817 study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rate in 139 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 2, for example, was 63%, compared with 77% in 391 patients with good ECOG PS (score of 0-1), and the rates of grade 3-4 AEs in the groups, respectively, were 26% and 35%, Fabrice Barlesi, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In 59 patients with ECOG PS of 0-1 plus either asymptomatic untreated brain metastases, hepatic or renal impairment, or HIV infection, the overall TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates were 78% and 34%.

The combined TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates in the two “special populations” cohorts were 67% and 28%, respectively, Dr. Barlesi, of Aix-Marseille Universite and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France, said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the ECOG PS-2 and PS-01+comorbidity groups was 19% and 37%, respectively, compared with 36% in the good PS cohort, and median duration of response in the three groups was 14.2 months, 9.7 months, and at least 18 months (median not reached), respectively.

The 1-year PFS rates were 25%, 27%, and 35% respectively, and median PFS was 3.6, 4.2, and 5.8, he said.

Among the 198 special population patients, those with PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater, 1% or greater, or less than 1% had 1-yr PFS rates of 46%, 24%, and 29% (median, 9.6, 3.2, and 3.9 months), and in those with 10 or greater mut/Mb and less than 10 mut/Mb, they were 42% and 17% (median, 8.3 and 2.8 months), respectively.

The single-arm, nonrandomized CheckMate 817 study evaluated the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks plus the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks, with treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years. Participants had stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had received no prior systemic therapy, and had no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors with distinct ... but complementary mechanisms of action,” Dr. Barlesi said, adding that in combination they have demonstrated clinical benefit vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

However, data are limited on safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with other comorbidities such as brain metastases, kidney and renal disease, and HIV, as such patients – despite comprising the majority of NSCLC patients at presentation – are typically ineligible for trial registration, he explained, adding that CheckMate 817 is a multicohort, nonrandomized, phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in such patients.

The findings show a safety profile “clearly comparable” to that observed in prior studies using weight-based nivolumab, he noted.

“Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed clearly encouraging clinical activity in this special population, with an overall response rate of 24%,” he said. “As expected, unfortunately, the outcomes in these special populations were affected by poor performance status, however, despite the poor performance status or comorbidities, those patients were shown to achieve durable responses ... with [an overall] duration of response at 1 year, of 57%.”

CheckMate 817 was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Barlesi disclosed financial relationships with Abbvie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Barlesi F et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.02.

BARCELONA – First-line flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was safe and showed encouraging clinical activity both in general and in patients with poor performance status and comorbidities in the multicenter CheckMate 817 study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rate in 139 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 2, for example, was 63%, compared with 77% in 391 patients with good ECOG PS (score of 0-1), and the rates of grade 3-4 AEs in the groups, respectively, were 26% and 35%, Fabrice Barlesi, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In 59 patients with ECOG PS of 0-1 plus either asymptomatic untreated brain metastases, hepatic or renal impairment, or HIV infection, the overall TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates were 78% and 34%.

The combined TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates in the two “special populations” cohorts were 67% and 28%, respectively, Dr. Barlesi, of Aix-Marseille Universite and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France, said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the ECOG PS-2 and PS-01+comorbidity groups was 19% and 37%, respectively, compared with 36% in the good PS cohort, and median duration of response in the three groups was 14.2 months, 9.7 months, and at least 18 months (median not reached), respectively.

The 1-year PFS rates were 25%, 27%, and 35% respectively, and median PFS was 3.6, 4.2, and 5.8, he said.

Among the 198 special population patients, those with PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater, 1% or greater, or less than 1% had 1-yr PFS rates of 46%, 24%, and 29% (median, 9.6, 3.2, and 3.9 months), and in those with 10 or greater mut/Mb and less than 10 mut/Mb, they were 42% and 17% (median, 8.3 and 2.8 months), respectively.

The single-arm, nonrandomized CheckMate 817 study evaluated the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks plus the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks, with treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years. Participants had stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had received no prior systemic therapy, and had no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors with distinct ... but complementary mechanisms of action,” Dr. Barlesi said, adding that in combination they have demonstrated clinical benefit vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

However, data are limited on safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with other comorbidities such as brain metastases, kidney and renal disease, and HIV, as such patients – despite comprising the majority of NSCLC patients at presentation – are typically ineligible for trial registration, he explained, adding that CheckMate 817 is a multicohort, nonrandomized, phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in such patients.

The findings show a safety profile “clearly comparable” to that observed in prior studies using weight-based nivolumab, he noted.

“Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed clearly encouraging clinical activity in this special population, with an overall response rate of 24%,” he said. “As expected, unfortunately, the outcomes in these special populations were affected by poor performance status, however, despite the poor performance status or comorbidities, those patients were shown to achieve durable responses ... with [an overall] duration of response at 1 year, of 57%.”

CheckMate 817 was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Barlesi disclosed financial relationships with Abbvie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Barlesi F et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.02.

BARCELONA – First-line flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was safe and showed encouraging clinical activity both in general and in patients with poor performance status and comorbidities in the multicenter CheckMate 817 study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rate in 139 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 2, for example, was 63%, compared with 77% in 391 patients with good ECOG PS (score of 0-1), and the rates of grade 3-4 AEs in the groups, respectively, were 26% and 35%, Fabrice Barlesi, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In 59 patients with ECOG PS of 0-1 plus either asymptomatic untreated brain metastases, hepatic or renal impairment, or HIV infection, the overall TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates were 78% and 34%.

The combined TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates in the two “special populations” cohorts were 67% and 28%, respectively, Dr. Barlesi, of Aix-Marseille Universite and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France, said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the ECOG PS-2 and PS-01+comorbidity groups was 19% and 37%, respectively, compared with 36% in the good PS cohort, and median duration of response in the three groups was 14.2 months, 9.7 months, and at least 18 months (median not reached), respectively.

The 1-year PFS rates were 25%, 27%, and 35% respectively, and median PFS was 3.6, 4.2, and 5.8, he said.

Among the 198 special population patients, those with PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater, 1% or greater, or less than 1% had 1-yr PFS rates of 46%, 24%, and 29% (median, 9.6, 3.2, and 3.9 months), and in those with 10 or greater mut/Mb and less than 10 mut/Mb, they were 42% and 17% (median, 8.3 and 2.8 months), respectively.

The single-arm, nonrandomized CheckMate 817 study evaluated the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks plus the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks, with treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years. Participants had stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had received no prior systemic therapy, and had no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors with distinct ... but complementary mechanisms of action,” Dr. Barlesi said, adding that in combination they have demonstrated clinical benefit vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

However, data are limited on safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with other comorbidities such as brain metastases, kidney and renal disease, and HIV, as such patients – despite comprising the majority of NSCLC patients at presentation – are typically ineligible for trial registration, he explained, adding that CheckMate 817 is a multicohort, nonrandomized, phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in such patients.

The findings show a safety profile “clearly comparable” to that observed in prior studies using weight-based nivolumab, he noted.

“Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed clearly encouraging clinical activity in this special population, with an overall response rate of 24%,” he said. “As expected, unfortunately, the outcomes in these special populations were affected by poor performance status, however, despite the poor performance status or comorbidities, those patients were shown to achieve durable responses ... with [an overall] duration of response at 1 year, of 57%.”

CheckMate 817 was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Barlesi disclosed financial relationships with Abbvie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Barlesi F et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.02.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) was not significantly associated with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 study.

In 293 patients with evaluable TMB data in KEYNOTE-189, including 207 who were treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 86 who received placebo plus chemotherapy, TMB as a continuous variable showed no significant association with either overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR), Marina C. Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved OS both in patients with TMB of 175 mutations/exome and greater and in those with TMB of fewer than 175 mutations/exome (hazard ratio for OS, 0.64 for both), and similar results were seen for PFS and ORR, Dr. Garassino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Similar results were also seen for those with tissue TMB of 150 mutations/exome or greater and those with fewer than 150 mutations/exome, she noted.

The double-blind KEYNOTE-189 study compared first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in 616 patients who were randomized 2:1 to the treatment arms, respectively, and showed that adding pembrolizumab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved OS (HR, 0.49), PFS (HR, 0.52), and ORR (47.6% vs. 18.9%). Benefit was observed in all analyzed subgroups, including patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tissue Polypeptide-specific (TPS) antigen of less than 1%, 1-49%, and 50% or greater, she noted.

In the current analysis, performed to assess the effect of tissue TMB on response rates, a similar benefit was seen in both TMB-high and -low subgroups.

“Our data suggest that tissue TMB may not help select patients who would have better outcomes with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and a platinum given as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” she concluded.

Similarly, an exploratory analysis of data from the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial – the first trial to show the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab given with chemotherapy – showed no association between tissue TMB and OS, PFS, or ORR in 70 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC who were treated with either pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed or with carboplatin and pemetrexed alone, Corey Langer, MD, reported at the conference.

“As you’re well aware,TMB has been widely evaluated as a biomarker for immunotherapy in advanced [NSCLC] and may identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Langer, professor of medicine and director of thoracic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we have very limited data on whether TMB is of any value as a biomarker for chemo, either alone or given with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.”

In this analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with a high response rate, regardless of tissue TMB status; in those with tissue TMB of 175 mutations/exome or greater and fewer than 175 mutations/exome, the response rates were 71% and 61%, respectively.

“So, tissue TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing was not significantly associated with efficacy for pembro and combination pem-carbo, or for chemotherapy alone, for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous [NSCLC], nor was there any significant association with PD-L1 expression,” he said. “Obviously an analysis of much larger datasets is needed to assess whether the benefit of pembro plus chemo relative to chemo alone differs in patients with TMB-high or TMB-low tumors,” he said.

For now, tissue TMB should not be used – “at least not yet” – in therapeutic decision making, he said, adding that it is important to distinguish between blood TMB and tissue TMB because the latter “may be more reflective of the entire tumor.”

Dr. Langer noted that he still thinks TMB has a potential role.

“We just haven’t figured it out yet,” he said.

Both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-021 were supported by Merck. Dr. Garassino and Dr. Langer reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCES: Garassino MC et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.06; Langer C et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.05.

.

BARCELONA – Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) was not significantly associated with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 study.

In 293 patients with evaluable TMB data in KEYNOTE-189, including 207 who were treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 86 who received placebo plus chemotherapy, TMB as a continuous variable showed no significant association with either overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR), Marina C. Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved OS both in patients with TMB of 175 mutations/exome and greater and in those with TMB of fewer than 175 mutations/exome (hazard ratio for OS, 0.64 for both), and similar results were seen for PFS and ORR, Dr. Garassino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Similar results were also seen for those with tissue TMB of 150 mutations/exome or greater and those with fewer than 150 mutations/exome, she noted.

The double-blind KEYNOTE-189 study compared first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in 616 patients who were randomized 2:1 to the treatment arms, respectively, and showed that adding pembrolizumab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved OS (HR, 0.49), PFS (HR, 0.52), and ORR (47.6% vs. 18.9%). Benefit was observed in all analyzed subgroups, including patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tissue Polypeptide-specific (TPS) antigen of less than 1%, 1-49%, and 50% or greater, she noted.

In the current analysis, performed to assess the effect of tissue TMB on response rates, a similar benefit was seen in both TMB-high and -low subgroups.

“Our data suggest that tissue TMB may not help select patients who would have better outcomes with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and a platinum given as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” she concluded.

Similarly, an exploratory analysis of data from the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial – the first trial to show the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab given with chemotherapy – showed no association between tissue TMB and OS, PFS, or ORR in 70 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC who were treated with either pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed or with carboplatin and pemetrexed alone, Corey Langer, MD, reported at the conference.

“As you’re well aware,TMB has been widely evaluated as a biomarker for immunotherapy in advanced [NSCLC] and may identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Langer, professor of medicine and director of thoracic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we have very limited data on whether TMB is of any value as a biomarker for chemo, either alone or given with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.”

In this analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with a high response rate, regardless of tissue TMB status; in those with tissue TMB of 175 mutations/exome or greater and fewer than 175 mutations/exome, the response rates were 71% and 61%, respectively.

“So, tissue TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing was not significantly associated with efficacy for pembro and combination pem-carbo, or for chemotherapy alone, for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous [NSCLC], nor was there any significant association with PD-L1 expression,” he said. “Obviously an analysis of much larger datasets is needed to assess whether the benefit of pembro plus chemo relative to chemo alone differs in patients with TMB-high or TMB-low tumors,” he said.

For now, tissue TMB should not be used – “at least not yet” – in therapeutic decision making, he said, adding that it is important to distinguish between blood TMB and tissue TMB because the latter “may be more reflective of the entire tumor.”

Dr. Langer noted that he still thinks TMB has a potential role.

“We just haven’t figured it out yet,” he said.

Both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-021 were supported by Merck. Dr. Garassino and Dr. Langer reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCES: Garassino MC et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.06; Langer C et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.05.

.

BARCELONA – Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) was not significantly associated with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 study.

In 293 patients with evaluable TMB data in KEYNOTE-189, including 207 who were treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 86 who received placebo plus chemotherapy, TMB as a continuous variable showed no significant association with either overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR), Marina C. Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved OS both in patients with TMB of 175 mutations/exome and greater and in those with TMB of fewer than 175 mutations/exome (hazard ratio for OS, 0.64 for both), and similar results were seen for PFS and ORR, Dr. Garassino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Similar results were also seen for those with tissue TMB of 150 mutations/exome or greater and those with fewer than 150 mutations/exome, she noted.

The double-blind KEYNOTE-189 study compared first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in 616 patients who were randomized 2:1 to the treatment arms, respectively, and showed that adding pembrolizumab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved OS (HR, 0.49), PFS (HR, 0.52), and ORR (47.6% vs. 18.9%). Benefit was observed in all analyzed subgroups, including patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tissue Polypeptide-specific (TPS) antigen of less than 1%, 1-49%, and 50% or greater, she noted.

In the current analysis, performed to assess the effect of tissue TMB on response rates, a similar benefit was seen in both TMB-high and -low subgroups.

“Our data suggest that tissue TMB may not help select patients who would have better outcomes with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and a platinum given as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” she concluded.

Similarly, an exploratory analysis of data from the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial – the first trial to show the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab given with chemotherapy – showed no association between tissue TMB and OS, PFS, or ORR in 70 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC who were treated with either pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed or with carboplatin and pemetrexed alone, Corey Langer, MD, reported at the conference.

“As you’re well aware,TMB has been widely evaluated as a biomarker for immunotherapy in advanced [NSCLC] and may identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Langer, professor of medicine and director of thoracic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we have very limited data on whether TMB is of any value as a biomarker for chemo, either alone or given with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.”

In this analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with a high response rate, regardless of tissue TMB status; in those with tissue TMB of 175 mutations/exome or greater and fewer than 175 mutations/exome, the response rates were 71% and 61%, respectively.

“So, tissue TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing was not significantly associated with efficacy for pembro and combination pem-carbo, or for chemotherapy alone, for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous [NSCLC], nor was there any significant association with PD-L1 expression,” he said. “Obviously an analysis of much larger datasets is needed to assess whether the benefit of pembro plus chemo relative to chemo alone differs in patients with TMB-high or TMB-low tumors,” he said.

For now, tissue TMB should not be used – “at least not yet” – in therapeutic decision making, he said, adding that it is important to distinguish between blood TMB and tissue TMB because the latter “may be more reflective of the entire tumor.”

Dr. Langer noted that he still thinks TMB has a potential role.

“We just haven’t figured it out yet,” he said.

Both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-021 were supported by Merck. Dr. Garassino and Dr. Langer reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCES: Garassino MC et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.06; Langer C et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.05.

.

BARCELONA – Adding a blood microRNA (miRNA) assay to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)–based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers bolsters lung cancer prevention efforts, according to findings from the prospective bioMILD trial.

Specifically, the addition of the miRNA assay appears to reduce unnecessary repeat LDCT scans based on individual risk profiles without adversely affecting lung cancer detection or mortality, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Of 4,119 volunteers with a median age of 60 years and a median of 42 pack-years who were enrolled between January 2013 and March 2016, 2,384 (58%) were assigned a 3-year LDCT repeat according to their double-negative baseline LDCT and miRNA profile, whereas 1,526 (37%) with a single-positive screen (either a positive miRNA or indeterminate/positive LDCT) and 209 (5%) with double positive (both a positive miRNA and indeterminate/positive LDCT) were assigned to annual or shorter LDCT repeat.

After four screening runs, a total of 115 lung cancers were diagnosed. The cumulative lung cancer rates “were enormously different” in the 3 groups, despite similar group composition with respect to age, gender, and tobacco consumption (0.6% for double-negative screening, 3.8% for single-positive screening, and 20.1% for double-positive screening), and lung cancer mortality was 0.1%, 0.6%, and 3.8% in the groups, respectively, Dr. Pastorino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

However, no significant differences were seen in the proportion of stage I lung cancers, resection rates, or interval cancer incidence in subjects sent to 3-year LDCT repeat, he noted.

The bioMILD trial was designed in the wake of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed that three annual LDCT rounds for lung cancer screening reduced lung cancer mortality, and the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial, which provided additional evidence that intervention beyond 5 years with annual or biennial rounds enhanced the benefit of screening.

Dr. Pastorino, the lead author on the MILD trial, previously reported that miRNA expression profiles in tumors and in normal lung tissue indicate aggressive lung cancer development and that specific miRNA signatures can be identified in plasma samples up to 2 years before spiral-CT detection of the disease.

The bioMILD trial tested the additional value of an miRNA assay at the time of LDCT.

Subjects were current (79%) or former heavy smokers, and 39% were women.

The findings suggest that adding the miRNA assay to LDCT for lung cancer screening is a “valuable and safe tool to assess individual risk profile and reduce unnecessary LDCT repeats in lung cancer screening,” Dr. Pastorino said.

“But what is more important for us [is that] the knowledge of individual biologic risk can improve the efficacy of screening, but can [also] guide prevention strategies because the problem in a heavy smoker is not to just detect lung cancer, it’s to reduce mortality,” he said at a press conference highlighting the findings. “And so, personalized prevention is a real option now, and that means diagnosis, but also preventive measures [such as] smoking cessation and chemoprevention.”

Invited discussant Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD, professor of public health and screening evaluation at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, noted that no other studies have evaluated screening intervals longer than 2 years, but he agreed that “reducing regular follow-up scans based on additional risk information is a way forward.”

However, the approach would increase costs, he said, adding that large, prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the safety of such approaches in nationwide programs.

Dr. Pastorino and Dr. de Koning each reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Pastorino U et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PL02.04

BARCELONA – Adding a blood microRNA (miRNA) assay to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)–based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers bolsters lung cancer prevention efforts, according to findings from the prospective bioMILD trial.

Specifically, the addition of the miRNA assay appears to reduce unnecessary repeat LDCT scans based on individual risk profiles without adversely affecting lung cancer detection or mortality, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Of 4,119 volunteers with a median age of 60 years and a median of 42 pack-years who were enrolled between January 2013 and March 2016, 2,384 (58%) were assigned a 3-year LDCT repeat according to their double-negative baseline LDCT and miRNA profile, whereas 1,526 (37%) with a single-positive screen (either a positive miRNA or indeterminate/positive LDCT) and 209 (5%) with double positive (both a positive miRNA and indeterminate/positive LDCT) were assigned to annual or shorter LDCT repeat.

After four screening runs, a total of 115 lung cancers were diagnosed. The cumulative lung cancer rates “were enormously different” in the 3 groups, despite similar group composition with respect to age, gender, and tobacco consumption (0.6% for double-negative screening, 3.8% for single-positive screening, and 20.1% for double-positive screening), and lung cancer mortality was 0.1%, 0.6%, and 3.8% in the groups, respectively, Dr. Pastorino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

However, no significant differences were seen in the proportion of stage I lung cancers, resection rates, or interval cancer incidence in subjects sent to 3-year LDCT repeat, he noted.

The bioMILD trial was designed in the wake of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed that three annual LDCT rounds for lung cancer screening reduced lung cancer mortality, and the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial, which provided additional evidence that intervention beyond 5 years with annual or biennial rounds enhanced the benefit of screening.

Dr. Pastorino, the lead author on the MILD trial, previously reported that miRNA expression profiles in tumors and in normal lung tissue indicate aggressive lung cancer development and that specific miRNA signatures can be identified in plasma samples up to 2 years before spiral-CT detection of the disease.

The bioMILD trial tested the additional value of an miRNA assay at the time of LDCT.

Subjects were current (79%) or former heavy smokers, and 39% were women.

The findings suggest that adding the miRNA assay to LDCT for lung cancer screening is a “valuable and safe tool to assess individual risk profile and reduce unnecessary LDCT repeats in lung cancer screening,” Dr. Pastorino said.

“But what is more important for us [is that] the knowledge of individual biologic risk can improve the efficacy of screening, but can [also] guide prevention strategies because the problem in a heavy smoker is not to just detect lung cancer, it’s to reduce mortality,” he said at a press conference highlighting the findings. “And so, personalized prevention is a real option now, and that means diagnosis, but also preventive measures [such as] smoking cessation and chemoprevention.”

Invited discussant Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD, professor of public health and screening evaluation at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, noted that no other studies have evaluated screening intervals longer than 2 years, but he agreed that “reducing regular follow-up scans based on additional risk information is a way forward.”

However, the approach would increase costs, he said, adding that large, prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the safety of such approaches in nationwide programs.

Dr. Pastorino and Dr. de Koning each reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Pastorino U et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PL02.04

BARCELONA – Adding a blood microRNA (miRNA) assay to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)–based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers bolsters lung cancer prevention efforts, according to findings from the prospective bioMILD trial.

Specifically, the addition of the miRNA assay appears to reduce unnecessary repeat LDCT scans based on individual risk profiles without adversely affecting lung cancer detection or mortality, Ugo Pastorino, MD, director of thoracic surgery at the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Foundation, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Of 4,119 volunteers with a median age of 60 years and a median of 42 pack-years who were enrolled between January 2013 and March 2016, 2,384 (58%) were assigned a 3-year LDCT repeat according to their double-negative baseline LDCT and miRNA profile, whereas 1,526 (37%) with a single-positive screen (either a positive miRNA or indeterminate/positive LDCT) and 209 (5%) with double positive (both a positive miRNA and indeterminate/positive LDCT) were assigned to annual or shorter LDCT repeat.

After four screening runs, a total of 115 lung cancers were diagnosed. The cumulative lung cancer rates “were enormously different” in the 3 groups, despite similar group composition with respect to age, gender, and tobacco consumption (0.6% for double-negative screening, 3.8% for single-positive screening, and 20.1% for double-positive screening), and lung cancer mortality was 0.1%, 0.6%, and 3.8% in the groups, respectively, Dr. Pastorino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

However, no significant differences were seen in the proportion of stage I lung cancers, resection rates, or interval cancer incidence in subjects sent to 3-year LDCT repeat, he noted.

The bioMILD trial was designed in the wake of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed that three annual LDCT rounds for lung cancer screening reduced lung cancer mortality, and the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection (MILD) trial, which provided additional evidence that intervention beyond 5 years with annual or biennial rounds enhanced the benefit of screening.

Dr. Pastorino, the lead author on the MILD trial, previously reported that miRNA expression profiles in tumors and in normal lung tissue indicate aggressive lung cancer development and that specific miRNA signatures can be identified in plasma samples up to 2 years before spiral-CT detection of the disease.

The bioMILD trial tested the additional value of an miRNA assay at the time of LDCT.

Subjects were current (79%) or former heavy smokers, and 39% were women.

The findings suggest that adding the miRNA assay to LDCT for lung cancer screening is a “valuable and safe tool to assess individual risk profile and reduce unnecessary LDCT repeats in lung cancer screening,” Dr. Pastorino said.

“But what is more important for us [is that] the knowledge of individual biologic risk can improve the efficacy of screening, but can [also] guide prevention strategies because the problem in a heavy smoker is not to just detect lung cancer, it’s to reduce mortality,” he said at a press conference highlighting the findings. “And so, personalized prevention is a real option now, and that means diagnosis, but also preventive measures [such as] smoking cessation and chemoprevention.”

Invited discussant Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD, professor of public health and screening evaluation at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, noted that no other studies have evaluated screening intervals longer than 2 years, but he agreed that “reducing regular follow-up scans based on additional risk information is a way forward.”

However, the approach would increase costs, he said, adding that large, prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the safety of such approaches in nationwide programs.

Dr. Pastorino and Dr. de Koning each reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Pastorino U et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PL02.04

BARCELONA – Mutations in the tumor suppressor KEAP1 or STK11 genes in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in the randomized, phase 3 MYSTIC trial experienced poorer outcomes than did patients without the mutations, according to an exploratory analysis of trial data.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Mutations in ARID1a, however, were associated with improved overall survival (OS) among patients in the trial who were treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab.

Profiling of circulating tumor DNA from 943 evaluable baseline plasma specimens showed median OS of 7.4 vs. 12.9 months among 170 patients with KEAP1 mutations (m) vs. in 773 with KEAP1 wild type (hazard ratio, 1.64), and 6.8 vs. 12.6 months in patients with STK11m vs. 796 with STK11wt (HR, 1.52), Naiyer A. Rizvi, MD, the Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of Thoracic Oncology, and codirector of Cancer Immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Objective response rates (ORR) in the groups, respectively, were 17.6% vs. 27.7% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, and 16.3% vs. 27.6% for STK11m vs. STK11wt, Dr. Rizvi said at the conference, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

This was regardless of MYSTIC trial treatment arm; the open-label, multicenter, global trial compared durvalumab monotherapy or durvalumab plus tremelimumab with platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase wild-type, locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Mutations in the ARID1a gene, however, had no impact on OS (12.6 vs. 11.4 months in 114 vs. 829 patients with ARID1am vs. ARID1awt; HR, 0.94), and ORRs, respectively, were 35.1% vs. 24.6%.

When comparing outcomes by treatment arm, the ORRs with chemotherapy were 15.1% vs. 34% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, 12.2% vs. 33.6% for STK11m vs. STK1wt, and 28.1% vs. 31% for ARID1am vs. ARID1awt.

The ORRs in the durvalumab arm were 16.7% vs. 25.2% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1st, 14.5% vs. 25.7% for STK11m vs. STK11wt and 25.6% vs. 23.4%, respectively, and in the durvalumab + tremelimumab arm they were 20.6% vs. 23.9% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, 21.6% vs. 23.6% for STK11m vs. STK11wt.

“The key finding here is really the ARID1a response,” Dr. Rizvi said, noting the “pretty impressive response rates” of 51.3% with ARID1am vs. 19.4% for ARID1awt.

The relationship between gene alterations and response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) therapy with and without anti-CTLA-4 therapy is not well characterized. These findings, which suggest that KEAP1 and STK11 mutations are prognostic for OS in mNSCLC, and that ARID1am may be predictive of OS benefit in patients receiving durvalumab + tremelimumab, provide insights to the potential impact of specific mutations on response to immunotherapy, Dr. Rizvi said.

“STK11 and KEAP1 mutations ... are relatively common mutations – they are actually the third and fourth most common mutations in lung cancer after p53 and KRAS,” he said, adding that they influence outcomes and need to be factored in to analyses of outcomes in lung cancer. “ARID1am patients were about 10% of the population and they did particularly well with durvalumab and tremelimumab, and I think these exploratory analyses can help us think about how we use [tumor mutational burden] and outcomes among cancer patients in future trials.”

The MYSTIC trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Rizvi disclosed royalties related to intellectual property/patents filed by MSKCC and Personal Genome Diagnostics.

SOURCE: Rizvi N et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.07.

BARCELONA – Mutations in the tumor suppressor KEAP1 or STK11 genes in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in the randomized, phase 3 MYSTIC trial experienced poorer outcomes than did patients without the mutations, according to an exploratory analysis of trial data.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Mutations in ARID1a, however, were associated with improved overall survival (OS) among patients in the trial who were treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab.

Profiling of circulating tumor DNA from 943 evaluable baseline plasma specimens showed median OS of 7.4 vs. 12.9 months among 170 patients with KEAP1 mutations (m) vs. in 773 with KEAP1 wild type (hazard ratio, 1.64), and 6.8 vs. 12.6 months in patients with STK11m vs. 796 with STK11wt (HR, 1.52), Naiyer A. Rizvi, MD, the Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of Thoracic Oncology, and codirector of Cancer Immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Objective response rates (ORR) in the groups, respectively, were 17.6% vs. 27.7% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, and 16.3% vs. 27.6% for STK11m vs. STK11wt, Dr. Rizvi said at the conference, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

This was regardless of MYSTIC trial treatment arm; the open-label, multicenter, global trial compared durvalumab monotherapy or durvalumab plus tremelimumab with platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase wild-type, locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Mutations in the ARID1a gene, however, had no impact on OS (12.6 vs. 11.4 months in 114 vs. 829 patients with ARID1am vs. ARID1awt; HR, 0.94), and ORRs, respectively, were 35.1% vs. 24.6%.

When comparing outcomes by treatment arm, the ORRs with chemotherapy were 15.1% vs. 34% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, 12.2% vs. 33.6% for STK11m vs. STK1wt, and 28.1% vs. 31% for ARID1am vs. ARID1awt.

The ORRs in the durvalumab arm were 16.7% vs. 25.2% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1st, 14.5% vs. 25.7% for STK11m vs. STK11wt and 25.6% vs. 23.4%, respectively, and in the durvalumab + tremelimumab arm they were 20.6% vs. 23.9% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, 21.6% vs. 23.6% for STK11m vs. STK11wt.

“The key finding here is really the ARID1a response,” Dr. Rizvi said, noting the “pretty impressive response rates” of 51.3% with ARID1am vs. 19.4% for ARID1awt.

The relationship between gene alterations and response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) therapy with and without anti-CTLA-4 therapy is not well characterized. These findings, which suggest that KEAP1 and STK11 mutations are prognostic for OS in mNSCLC, and that ARID1am may be predictive of OS benefit in patients receiving durvalumab + tremelimumab, provide insights to the potential impact of specific mutations on response to immunotherapy, Dr. Rizvi said.

“STK11 and KEAP1 mutations ... are relatively common mutations – they are actually the third and fourth most common mutations in lung cancer after p53 and KRAS,” he said, adding that they influence outcomes and need to be factored in to analyses of outcomes in lung cancer. “ARID1am patients were about 10% of the population and they did particularly well with durvalumab and tremelimumab, and I think these exploratory analyses can help us think about how we use [tumor mutational burden] and outcomes among cancer patients in future trials.”

The MYSTIC trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Rizvi disclosed royalties related to intellectual property/patents filed by MSKCC and Personal Genome Diagnostics.

SOURCE: Rizvi N et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.07.

BARCELONA – Mutations in the tumor suppressor KEAP1 or STK11 genes in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in the randomized, phase 3 MYSTIC trial experienced poorer outcomes than did patients without the mutations, according to an exploratory analysis of trial data.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Mutations in ARID1a, however, were associated with improved overall survival (OS) among patients in the trial who were treated with durvalumab + tremelimumab.

Profiling of circulating tumor DNA from 943 evaluable baseline plasma specimens showed median OS of 7.4 vs. 12.9 months among 170 patients with KEAP1 mutations (m) vs. in 773 with KEAP1 wild type (hazard ratio, 1.64), and 6.8 vs. 12.6 months in patients with STK11m vs. 796 with STK11wt (HR, 1.52), Naiyer A. Rizvi, MD, the Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of Thoracic Oncology, and codirector of Cancer Immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Objective response rates (ORR) in the groups, respectively, were 17.6% vs. 27.7% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, and 16.3% vs. 27.6% for STK11m vs. STK11wt, Dr. Rizvi said at the conference, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

This was regardless of MYSTIC trial treatment arm; the open-label, multicenter, global trial compared durvalumab monotherapy or durvalumab plus tremelimumab with platinum-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase wild-type, locally-advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Mutations in the ARID1a gene, however, had no impact on OS (12.6 vs. 11.4 months in 114 vs. 829 patients with ARID1am vs. ARID1awt; HR, 0.94), and ORRs, respectively, were 35.1% vs. 24.6%.

When comparing outcomes by treatment arm, the ORRs with chemotherapy were 15.1% vs. 34% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, 12.2% vs. 33.6% for STK11m vs. STK1wt, and 28.1% vs. 31% for ARID1am vs. ARID1awt.

The ORRs in the durvalumab arm were 16.7% vs. 25.2% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1st, 14.5% vs. 25.7% for STK11m vs. STK11wt and 25.6% vs. 23.4%, respectively, and in the durvalumab + tremelimumab arm they were 20.6% vs. 23.9% for KEAP1m vs. KEAP1wt, 21.6% vs. 23.6% for STK11m vs. STK11wt.

“The key finding here is really the ARID1a response,” Dr. Rizvi said, noting the “pretty impressive response rates” of 51.3% with ARID1am vs. 19.4% for ARID1awt.

The relationship between gene alterations and response to anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) therapy with and without anti-CTLA-4 therapy is not well characterized. These findings, which suggest that KEAP1 and STK11 mutations are prognostic for OS in mNSCLC, and that ARID1am may be predictive of OS benefit in patients receiving durvalumab + tremelimumab, provide insights to the potential impact of specific mutations on response to immunotherapy, Dr. Rizvi said.

“STK11 and KEAP1 mutations ... are relatively common mutations – they are actually the third and fourth most common mutations in lung cancer after p53 and KRAS,” he said, adding that they influence outcomes and need to be factored in to analyses of outcomes in lung cancer. “ARID1am patients were about 10% of the population and they did particularly well with durvalumab and tremelimumab, and I think these exploratory analyses can help us think about how we use [tumor mutational burden] and outcomes among cancer patients in future trials.”

The MYSTIC trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Rizvi disclosed royalties related to intellectual property/patents filed by MSKCC and Personal Genome Diagnostics.

SOURCE: Rizvi N et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.07.

BARCELONA – Molecular testing to guide treatment in patients with lung cancer remains underused, and awareness of related evidence-based guidelines is suboptimal, results of an international survey suggest.

Sharon Worcester/ MDedge News

Overall, 61% of the 2,537 respondents from 102 countries and across multiple relevant medical specialties reported that molecular testing rates in their country were less than 50%, with the lowest rates reported in Latin America. And 33% of those requesting molecular testing said they were unaware of the most updated guidelines supporting the use of such testing in lung cancer, Matthew Smeltzer, PhD, of the University of Memphis (Tenn.) reported during a press conference at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

The findings from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Global Survey on Molecular Testing in Lung Cancer also showed that 41% of respondents who perform or interpret molecular testing assays report being dissatisfied with the conditions of molecular testing in their country, 17% said they feel that patients are not satisfied, and 35% said they aren’t sure about the state of testing in their country.

Specific concerns reported by respondents included trouble understanding results, the time it takes to receive the results, and the reliability of samples.

The top five barriers to molecular testing included cost, quality, access, awareness, and time, Dr. Smeltzer said at the meeting which is sponsored by the IASLC.

“These five were the same five top barriers in each region of the world,” he said, noting that the ordering of the barriers differed somewhat among regions.

The survey included a seven-question introduction, with 32 additional questions for respondents who request tests and treat patients, 45 questions on performing and interpreting assays, and 24 questions on tissue acquisition. Additionally, all respondents were asked to list barriers that impede their country’s ability to offer molecular testing.

“I’d say we got a pretty good geographic distribution of responses; 56% of these responses were from developing countries, 44% from developed countries,” he said, noting that medical oncologists constituted the highest percentage of respondents, followed by pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, and other scientists.

When asked specifically what would prompt molecular testing, respondents most often listed adenocarcinoma, never-smoker status, female gender, and young age, Dr. Smeltzer said.

“Overall, we’re still finding that many in the lung cancer community are not satisfied with the current state of molecular testing. We’ve got suboptimal awareness of the evidence-based guidelines. We have barriers that remain to molecular testing, which we’ve identified, and [we’re] recommending continuous education around molecular testing, and that should be intensified on a national and international level to ensure that patients receive optimal therapy,” he concluded.

The IASLC survey was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Smeltzer reported receiving research support from the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – Molecular testing to guide treatment in patients with lung cancer remains underused, and awareness of related evidence-based guidelines is suboptimal, results of an international survey suggest.

Sharon Worcester/ MDedge News

Overall, 61% of the 2,537 respondents from 102 countries and across multiple relevant medical specialties reported that molecular testing rates in their country were less than 50%, with the lowest rates reported in Latin America. And 33% of those requesting molecular testing said they were unaware of the most updated guidelines supporting the use of such testing in lung cancer, Matthew Smeltzer, PhD, of the University of Memphis (Tenn.) reported during a press conference at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

The findings from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Global Survey on Molecular Testing in Lung Cancer also showed that 41% of respondents who perform or interpret molecular testing assays report being dissatisfied with the conditions of molecular testing in their country, 17% said they feel that patients are not satisfied, and 35% said they aren’t sure about the state of testing in their country.

Specific concerns reported by respondents included trouble understanding results, the time it takes to receive the results, and the reliability of samples.

The top five barriers to molecular testing included cost, quality, access, awareness, and time, Dr. Smeltzer said at the meeting which is sponsored by the IASLC.

“These five were the same five top barriers in each region of the world,” he said, noting that the ordering of the barriers differed somewhat among regions.

The survey included a seven-question introduction, with 32 additional questions for respondents who request tests and treat patients, 45 questions on performing and interpreting assays, and 24 questions on tissue acquisition. Additionally, all respondents were asked to list barriers that impede their country’s ability to offer molecular testing.

“I’d say we got a pretty good geographic distribution of responses; 56% of these responses were from developing countries, 44% from developed countries,” he said, noting that medical oncologists constituted the highest percentage of respondents, followed by pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, and other scientists.

When asked specifically what would prompt molecular testing, respondents most often listed adenocarcinoma, never-smoker status, female gender, and young age, Dr. Smeltzer said.

“Overall, we’re still finding that many in the lung cancer community are not satisfied with the current state of molecular testing. We’ve got suboptimal awareness of the evidence-based guidelines. We have barriers that remain to molecular testing, which we’ve identified, and [we’re] recommending continuous education around molecular testing, and that should be intensified on a national and international level to ensure that patients receive optimal therapy,” he concluded.

The IASLC survey was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Smeltzer reported receiving research support from the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – Molecular testing to guide treatment in patients with lung cancer remains underused, and awareness of related evidence-based guidelines is suboptimal, results of an international survey suggest.

Sharon Worcester/ MDedge News

Overall, 61% of the 2,537 respondents from 102 countries and across multiple relevant medical specialties reported that molecular testing rates in their country were less than 50%, with the lowest rates reported in Latin America. And 33% of those requesting molecular testing said they were unaware of the most updated guidelines supporting the use of such testing in lung cancer, Matthew Smeltzer, PhD, of the University of Memphis (Tenn.) reported during a press conference at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

The findings from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) Global Survey on Molecular Testing in Lung Cancer also showed that 41% of respondents who perform or interpret molecular testing assays report being dissatisfied with the conditions of molecular testing in their country, 17% said they feel that patients are not satisfied, and 35% said they aren’t sure about the state of testing in their country.

Specific concerns reported by respondents included trouble understanding results, the time it takes to receive the results, and the reliability of samples.

The top five barriers to molecular testing included cost, quality, access, awareness, and time, Dr. Smeltzer said at the meeting which is sponsored by the IASLC.

“These five were the same five top barriers in each region of the world,” he said, noting that the ordering of the barriers differed somewhat among regions.

The survey included a seven-question introduction, with 32 additional questions for respondents who request tests and treat patients, 45 questions on performing and interpreting assays, and 24 questions on tissue acquisition. Additionally, all respondents were asked to list barriers that impede their country’s ability to offer molecular testing.

“I’d say we got a pretty good geographic distribution of responses; 56% of these responses were from developing countries, 44% from developed countries,” he said, noting that medical oncologists constituted the highest percentage of respondents, followed by pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, and other scientists.

When asked specifically what would prompt molecular testing, respondents most often listed adenocarcinoma, never-smoker status, female gender, and young age, Dr. Smeltzer said.

“Overall, we’re still finding that many in the lung cancer community are not satisfied with the current state of molecular testing. We’ve got suboptimal awareness of the evidence-based guidelines. We have barriers that remain to molecular testing, which we’ve identified, and [we’re] recommending continuous education around molecular testing, and that should be intensified on a national and international level to ensure that patients receive optimal therapy,” he concluded.

The IASLC survey was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Smeltzer reported receiving research support from the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – All cancer patients should be screened for tobacco use and advised about the benefits of tobacco cessation, and evidence-based tobacco cessation assistance should be provided to those who continue using tobacco, according to a new declaration from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).

Sharon Worcester/ MDedge News

Such assistance should be “routinely and integrally incorporated into multidisciplinary cancer care for the patients and their family members,” according to the declaration, which was developed by the IASLC Tobacco Control and Smoking Cessation Committee in part to increase physician involvement in tobacco control and was officially released at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“The consequences of smoking continuation by cancer patients and cancer survivors are many,” presenting author Jacek Jassem, MD, PhD, professor and head of the department of oncology and radiotherapy at the Medical University of Gdansk (Poland), said during a press conference at the meeting, which is sponsored by the IASLC.

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases cancer-related and overall mortality, the risk of developing additional cancers, and the risk of treatment toxicity, he explained.

“And of course [continued smoking is] associated with much higher treatment costs, mostly due to complications,” he added.

The IASLC addresses both the challenges and opportunities associated with tobacco cessation, including the fact that most cancer patients who smoke continue to do so during and after treatment and that health care providers often don’t provide patients with cessation assistance to help them quit.

In addition to the screening and tobacco cessation assistance recommendations, the declaration also states the following:

• Educational programs regarding cancer management should include tobacco cessation training, empathetic communication around the history of tobacco use and cessation, and utilization of existing evidence-based tobacco cessation resources.
• Smoking cessation counseling and treatment should be a reimbursable service.
• Smoking status, both initially and during the study, should be a required data element for all prospective clinical studies.
• Clinical trials of patients with cancer should consider designs that could also determine the most effective tobacco cessation interventions.

Dr. Jassem is on the speakers bureau for MSD, Takeda, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – All cancer patients should be screened for tobacco use and advised about the benefits of tobacco cessation, and evidence-based tobacco cessation assistance should be provided to those who continue using tobacco, according to a new declaration from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).

Sharon Worcester/ MDedge News

Such assistance should be “routinely and integrally incorporated into multidisciplinary cancer care for the patients and their family members,” according to the declaration, which was developed by the IASLC Tobacco Control and Smoking Cessation Committee in part to increase physician involvement in tobacco control and was officially released at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“The consequences of smoking continuation by cancer patients and cancer survivors are many,” presenting author Jacek Jassem, MD, PhD, professor and head of the department of oncology and radiotherapy at the Medical University of Gdansk (Poland), said during a press conference at the meeting, which is sponsored by the IASLC.

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases cancer-related and overall mortality, the risk of developing additional cancers, and the risk of treatment toxicity, he explained.

“And of course [continued smoking is] associated with much higher treatment costs, mostly due to complications,” he added.

The IASLC addresses both the challenges and opportunities associated with tobacco cessation, including the fact that most cancer patients who smoke continue to do so during and after treatment and that health care providers often don’t provide patients with cessation assistance to help them quit.

In addition to the screening and tobacco cessation assistance recommendations, the declaration also states the following:

• Educational programs regarding cancer management should include tobacco cessation training, empathetic communication around the history of tobacco use and cessation, and utilization of existing evidence-based tobacco cessation resources.
• Smoking cessation counseling and treatment should be a reimbursable service.
• Smoking status, both initially and during the study, should be a required data element for all prospective clinical studies.
• Clinical trials of patients with cancer should consider designs that could also determine the most effective tobacco cessation interventions.

Dr. Jassem is on the speakers bureau for MSD, Takeda, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, and Pfizer.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – All cancer patients should be screened for tobacco use and advised about the benefits of tobacco cessation, and evidence-based tobacco cessation assistance should be provided to those who continue using tobacco, according to a new declaration from the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).

Sharon Worcester/ MDedge News

Such assistance should be “routinely and integrally incorporated into multidisciplinary cancer care for the patients and their family members,” according to the declaration, which was developed by the IASLC Tobacco Control and Smoking Cessation Committee in part to increase physician involvement in tobacco control and was officially released at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“The consequences of smoking continuation by cancer patients and cancer survivors are many,” presenting author Jacek Jassem, MD, PhD, professor and head of the department of oncology and radiotherapy at the Medical University of Gdansk (Poland), said during a press conference at the meeting, which is sponsored by the IASLC.

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases cancer-related and overall mortality, the risk of developing additional cancers, and the risk of treatment toxicity, he explained.

“And of course [continued smoking is] associated with much higher treatment costs, mostly due to complications,” he added.

The IASLC addresses both the challenges and opportunities associated with tobacco cessation, including the fact that most cancer patients who smoke continue to do so during and after treatment and that health care providers often don’t provide patients with cessation assistance to help them quit.

In addition to the screening and tobacco cessation assistance recommendations, the declaration also states the following:

• Educational programs regarding cancer management should include tobacco cessation training, empathetic communication around the history of tobacco use and cessation, and utilization of existing evidence-based tobacco cessation resources.
• Smoking cessation counseling and treatment should be a reimbursable service.
• Smoking status, both initially and during the study, should be a required data element for all prospective clinical studies.
• Clinical trials of patients with cancer should consider designs that could also determine the most effective tobacco cessation interventions.

Dr. Jassem is on the speakers bureau for MSD, Takeda, BMS, Astra-Zeneca, and Pfizer.

[email protected]