lba62health related quality of life hrqol for pembrolizumab or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab paclitaxel in patients with metastatic squamous nsclc data from keynote 407

n/

Associations of Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden and Mutational Status With Clinical Outcomes With Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy For Metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) and mutations in STK11, KEAP1, and KRAS as biomarkers for outcomes with pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (pembrolizumab-combination) for NSCLC among patients in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02578680; nonsquamous) and KEYNOTE-407 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02775435; squamous) trials. METHODS: This retrospective exploratory analysis evaluated prevalence of high tTMB and STK11, KEAP1, and KRAS mutations in patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 and the relationship between these potential biomarkers and clinical outcomes. tTMB and STK11, KEAP1, and KRAS mutation status was assessed using whole-exome sequencing in patients with available tumor and matched normal DNA. The clinical utility of tTMB was assessed using a prespecified cutpoint of 175 mutations/exome. RESULTS: Among patients with evaluable data from whole-exome sequencing for evaluation of tTMB (KEYNOTE-189, n = 293; KEYNOTE-407, n = 312) and matched normal DNA, no association was found between continuous tTMB score and overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival for pembrolizumab-combination (Wald test, one-sided p \u3e 0.05) or placebo-combination (Wald test, two-sided p \u3e 0.05) in patients with squamous or nonsquamous histology. Pembrolizumab-combination improved outcomes for patients with tTMB greater than or equal to 175 compared with tTMB less than 175 mutations/exome in KEYNOTE-189 (OS, hazard ratio = 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38‒1.07] and 0.64 [95% CI: 0.42‒0.97], respectively) and KEYNOTE-407 (OS, hazard ratio = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.50‒1.08 and 0.86 [95% CI: 0.57‒1.28], respectively) versus placebo-combination. Treatment outcomes were similar regardless of KEAP1, STK11, or KRAS mutation status. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support pembrolizumab-combination as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic NSCLC and do not suggest the utility of tTMB, STK11, KEAP1, or KRAS mutation status as a biomarker for this regimen

Managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: consensus recommendations from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Toxicity Management Working Group.

Cancer immunotherapy has transformed the treatment of cancer. However, increasing use of immune-based therapies, including the widely used class of agents known as immune checkpoint inhibitors, has exposed a discrete group of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Many of these are driven by the same immunologic mechanisms responsible for the drugs\u27 therapeutic effects, namely blockade of inhibitory mechanisms that suppress the immune system and protect body tissues from an unconstrained acute or chronic immune response. Skin, gut, endocrine, lung and musculoskeletal irAEs are relatively common, whereas cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, neurologic and ophthalmologic irAEs occur much less frequently. The majority of irAEs are mild to moderate in severity; however, serious and occasionally life-threatening irAEs are reported in the literature, and treatment-related deaths occur in up to 2% of patients, varying by ICI. Immunotherapy-related irAEs typically have a delayed onset and prolonged duration compared to adverse events from chemotherapy, and effective management depends on early recognition and prompt intervention with immune suppression and/or immunomodulatory strategies. There is an urgent need for multidisciplinary guidance reflecting broad-based perspectives on how to recognize, report and manage organ-specific toxicities until evidence-based data are available to inform clinical decision-making. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) established a multidisciplinary Toxicity Management Working Group, which met for a full-day workshop to develop recommendations to standardize management of irAEs. Here we present their consensus recommendations on managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field