First‐line pembrolizumab for non–small cell lung cancer patients with PD‐L1 ≥50% in a multicenter real‐life cohort: The PEMBREIZH study

Background: The KEYNOTE-024 trial demonstrated that pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in selected patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and without EGFR/ALK aberrations. The main aim of this study was to report the efficacy and safety profile of pembrolizumab in real-life conditions. Method: This was a French retrospective multicenter longitudinal study of 108 consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC, a PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and without EGFR/ ALK aberrations who were treated by pembrolizumab, in first line. Patient data were obtained from medical files. Results: The main characteristics of the cohort were: median age [range] 66.7 [37-87] years, 64.8% male, 23.1% with a performance status (PS) of 2, and 88.9% current or former smokers. Eighty-seven percent had stage IV NSCLC at diagnosis, 9.2% untreated brain metastases at inclusion,. With a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the median PFS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 8.8-11.4). The objective response rate was 57.3% (complete response 2.7%, partial response 54.6%). Disease control rate was 71.1%. At 6 months, the OS rate estimated was 86.2%. Treatment-related adverse events (AE) of grade 3 occurred in 8% of patients. There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs. Conclusion: In a real-life cohort of advanced NSCLC patients (including PS 2 and untreated brain metastases), with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%, pembrolizumab demonstrates similar PFS to the pivotal clinical trial

Indoor radon and lung cancer in France.

BACKGROUND: Several case-control studies have indicated an increased risk of lung cancer linked to indoor radon exposure; others have not supported this hypothesis, partly because of a lack of statistical power. As part of a large European project, a hospital-based case-control study was carried out in 4 areas in France with relatively high radon levels. METHODS: Radon concentrations were measured in dwellings that had been occupied by the study subjects during the 5- to 30-year period before the interview. Measurements of radon concentrations were performed during a 6-month period using 2 Kodalpha LR 115 detectors (Dosirad, France), 1 in the living room and 1 in the bedroom. We examined lung cancer risk in relation to indoor radon exposure after adjustment for age, sex, region, cigarette smoking, and occupational exposure. RESULTS: We included in the analysis 486 cases and 984 controls with radon measures in at least 1 dwelling. When lung cancer risk was examined in relation to the time-weighted average radon concentration during the 5- to 30-year period, the estimated relative risks (with 95% confidence intervals) were: 0.85 (0.59-1.22), 1.19 (0.81-1.77), 1.04 (0.64-1.67), and 1.11 (0.59-2.09) for categories 50-100, 100-200, 200-400, and 400+ becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m), respectively (reference <50 Bq/m). The estimated relative risk per 100 Bq/m was 1.04 (0.99-1.11) for all subjects and 1.07 (1.00-1.14) for subjects with complete measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the presence of a small excess lung cancer risk associated with indoor radon exposure after precise adjustment on smoking. They are in agreement with results from some other indoor radon case-control studies and with extrapolations from studies of underground miners