Safety and Efficacy of Extended Interval Dosing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION: Extended interval (EI) dosing for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) mono- or consolidation therapy initiated due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in ICI-related site visits for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we report the safety and efficacy compared to standard dose (SD) schedules. METHOD: In this retrospective analysis patients who received ICI mono- or consolidation therapy, or adjuvant ICI therapy were assessed. Safety and efficacy of EI dosing with data of SD schedules were compared. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients received EI dosing for ICI and 88 patients SD. Patient characteristics were comparable. We observed 237 adverse events in the EI dosing cohort versus 118 in the SD group (p = 0.02). Overall, there was no difference in the occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events (EI dosing: 21/237 [8.9%]; SD group: 20/118 [17.0%], p = 0.42), except for the pembrolizumab EI dosing cohort. Of all patients who received an EI dosing schedule, however, only 8 (6.8%) were reduced to SD because of toxicity. In 5 (4.3%) patients ICI was permanently stopped because of severe toxicity compared to 11 (12.5%) discontinuations in the SD group. Short-term treatment interruption occurred with similar frequencies in both groups. PFS and OS were comparable in patients receiving pembrolizumab and in those receiving adjuvant durvalumab. Progression-free survival and OS were better in the EI dosing cohort of nivolumab. CONCLUSION: EI dosing for ICI did not lead to an increase of clinically relevant toxicities resulting in dose reduction and/or treatment discontinuation. Efficacy of EI dosing of pembrolizumab and durvalumab were comparable to SD. Based on our safety and efficacy data EI dosing for ICI seems a safe and effective strategy. MICRO ABSTRACT: Aim Retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of extended interval dosing (EI) ICI compared to standard dose (SD) schedules. Results 117 patients received EI dosing and 88 SD. In the EI dosing cohort was no increase in toxicity leading to dose reduction and/or discontinuation of treatment. Furthermore, efficacy of EI dosing of pembrolizumab and durvalumab were comparable to SD. Based on our safety and efficacy data EI dosing for ICI seem a safe and effective strategy and should be continued also beyond the COVID-19 pandemic

Health-related problems in adult cancer survivors:Development and validation of the Cancer Survivor Core Set

Improved survival rates from cancer have increased the need to understand the health-related problems of cancer treatment. We aimed to develop and validate the "Cancer Survivor Core Set" representing the most relevant health-related problems in adult cancer survivors using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).First, a Delphi study was conducted to select ICF categories representing the most relevant health-related problems. There were three Dutch expert panels, one each for lung, colorectal, and breast cancer. Each panel comprised lay experts and professionals. The experts reached within- and between-panel consensus in two rounds (ae70 % agreement). Second, a validation study was performed. Generic cancer survivorship questionnaires assessing health-related problems or quality of life among cancer survivors were selected. Items of selected questionnaires were linked to the best-fitting ICF category and to the selected ICF categories from the Delphi study, respectively.In total, 101 experts were included, of which 76 participated in both rounds, reaching consensus on 18 ICF categories. The Distress Thermometer and Problem List, the Impact of Cancer (v2), and the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors questionnaires were selected for the validation study, which led to the inclusion of one additional ICF category.The developed Cancer Survivor Core Set consisted of 19 ICF categories representing the most relevant health-related problems in adult cancer survivors: five from the "body functions and structures" component, eight from the "activities and participation" component, and six from the "environmental factors" component.aEuro cent Many adult cancer survivors have persistent health-related problems.aEuro cent The Cancer Survivor Core Set was developed using the Delphi method.aEuro cent The patients' perspectives were prioritized in this Delphi studyaEuro cent Content validity was confirmed by validated cancer survivorship questionnaires.aEuro cent The Cancer Survivor Core Set may help optimize care for cancer survivors.</p

Treatment goals and changes over time in older patients with non-curable cancer

PURPOSE: To investigate the treatment goals of older patients with non-curable cancer, whether those goals changed over time, and if so, what triggered those changes. METHODS: We performed a descriptive and qualitative analysis using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) to assess patient goals across four conversations with general practitioners (GPs) over 6 months. Text entries from electronic patient records (hospital and general practice) were then analyzed qualitatively for this period. RESULTS: Of the 29 included patients, 10 (34%) rated extending life and 9 (31%) rated maintaining independence as their most important goals. Patients in the last year before death (late phase) prioritized extending life less often (3 patients; 21%) than those in the early phase (7 patients; 47%). Goals changed for 16 patients during follow-up (12 in the late phase). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that explained the baseline OPT scores (prioritizing a specific goal, rating a goal as unimportant, and treatment choices related to goals). Another three themes related to changes in OPT scores (symptoms, disease course, and life events) and stability of OPT scores (stable situation, disease-unrelated motivation, and stability despite symptoms). CONCLUSION: Patients most often prioritized extending life as the most important goal. However, priorities differed in the late phase of the disease, leading to changed goals. Triggers for change related to both the disease (e.g., symptoms and course) and to other life events. We therefore recommend that goals should be discussed repeatedly, especially near the end of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OPTion study: NTR5419

Immune microenvironment composition in non-small cell lung cancer and its association with survival

Objectives In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the immune system and possibly its composition affect survival. In thisin silicostudy, the immune infiltrate composition in NSCLC patients was evaluated. Methods Gene expression data of tumors from early NSCLC patients were obtained from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). With CIBERSORT, 22 immune cell fractions were estimated. Results The immune infiltrate of 1430 pretreatment NSCLC patients contained mostly plasma cells, macrophages and CD8 T cells. Higher fractions of resting mast and CD4 T-helper cells were associated with longer overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95,P <0.01; HR = 0.98, = 0.04, respectively) and higher fractions of M2 macrophages and active dendritic cells with shorter survival (HR = 1.02,P = 0.03; HR = 1.03,P = 0.05, respectively). Adenocarcinoma patients with survival data (n = 587) showed higher fractions of resting mast and resting CD4 T cells, and lower M0 macrophages than squamous cell carcinoma (n = 254), which were associated with OS (HR = 0.95,P = 0.04; HR = 0.97,P = 0.01; HR = 1.03,P = 0.01, respectively). Fractions of memory B cells, naive CD4 T cells and neutrophils had different associations with survival depending on the subtype. Smokers had had higher fractions of regulatory T cell, follicular helper T cell, neutrophil and M2 macrophage, which were associated with shorter survival (HR = 1.3,P <0.01; HR = 1.13,P = 0.02; HR = 1.09,P = 0.03; HR = 1.04,P = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion Pretreatment differences in immune cell composition in NSCLC are associated with survival and depend on smoking status and histological subtype. Smokers' immune composition is associated with lower survival

Risk factors for adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause serious immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This study aimed to identify risk factors for all types of irAEs induced by ICIs in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), by systematic review and meta-analyses. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science by two independent reviewers. Studies were selected that included patients with NSCLC and evaluated characteristics of patients with and without irAEs induced by ICIs. Quality and risk of bias of the selected studies were assessed. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) for risk factors of developing all type of irAEs, and separately for pneumonitis, interstitial lung disease and severe irAEs. With the objective of exploring sources of heterogeneity, stratified analyses were performed by quality and region. RESULTS: 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, the data of 6696 patients were pooled. 33 different risk factors for irAEs were reported. irAEs of interest were reported for 1653 (25%) of the patients. Risk factors related to the development of irAEs were: C-reactive protein, neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR), use of PD-1 inhibitor, high PD-L1 expression, an active or former smoking status, ground glass attenuation, and a better treatment response. CONCLUSION: The identified risk factors for the development of these irAEs are mostly related to the alteration of the immune system, proinflammatory states and loss of immunological self-tolerance. Patients identified as having a higher risk for irAEs should be monitored more closely

Adherence and Concordance between Serious Illness Care Planning Conversations and Oncology Clinician Documentation among Patients with Advanced Cancer

Background:Serious illness conversations are part of advance care planning (ACP) and focus on prognosis, values, and goals in patients who are seriously ill. To be maximally effective, such conversations must be documented accurately and be easily accessible. Objectives:The two coprimary objectives of the study were to assess concordance between written documentation and recorded audiotaped conversations, and to evaluate adherence to the Serious Illness Conversation Guide questions. Methods:Data were obtained as part of a trial in patients with advanced cancer. Clinicians were trained to use a guide to conduct and document serious illness conversations. Conversations were audiotaped. Two researchers independently compared audiorecordings with the corresponding documentation in an electronic health record (EHR) template and free-text progress notes, and rated the degree of concordance and adherence. Results:We reviewed a total of 25 audiorecordings. Clinicians addressed 87% of the conversation guide elements. Prognosis was discussed least frequently, only in 55% of the patients who wanted that information. Documentation was fully concordant with the conversation 43% of the time. Concordance was best when documenting family matters and goals, and least frequently concordant when documenting prognostic communication. Most conversations (64%) were documented in the template, a minority (28%) only in progress notes and two conversations (8%) were not documented. Concordance was better when the template was used (62% vs. 28%). Conclusion:Clinicians adhered well to the conversation guide. However, key information elicited was documented and fully concordant less than half the time. Greater concordance was observed when clinicians used a prespecified template. The combined use of a guide and EHR template holds promise for ACP conversations

A Qualitative Study of Serious Illness Conversations in Patients with Advanced Cancer

BACKGROUND: Conversations with seriously ill patients about their values and goals have been associated with reduced distress, a better quality of life, and goal-concordant care near the end of life. Yet, little is known about how such conversations are conducted. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the content of serious illness conversations and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of audio-recorded, serious illness conversations using an evidence-based guide and obtained through a cluster randomized controlled trial in an outpatient oncology setting. Setting/Measurements: Clinicians assigned to the intervention arm received training to use the "Serious Illness Conversation Guide" to have a serious illness conversation about values and goals with advanced cancer patients. Conversations were de-identified, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two researchers. Key themes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 25 conversations conducted by 16 clinicians were evaluated. The median conversation duration was 14 minutes (range 4-37), with clinicians speaking half of the time. Thematic analyses demonstrated five key themes: (1) supportive dialogue between patients and clinicians; (2) patients' openness to discuss emotionally challenging topics; (3) patients' willingness to articulate preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments; (4) clinicians' difficulty in responding to emotional or ambiguous patient statements; and (5) challenges in discussing prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this exploratory study suggest that seriously ill patients are open to discussing values and goals with their clinician. Yet, clinicians may struggle when disclosing a time-based prognosis and in responding to patients' emotions. Such skills should be a focus for additional training for clinicians caring for seriously ill patients

Erratum to: Circulating tumor DNA as a biomarker for monitoring early treatment responses of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The following error appeared in Section 3.5 in Ref. [1]. Instead of ‘Progressive disease-L1 expression data were available for 87 patients’, the text should read ‘PD-L1 expression data were available for 87 patients’. We apologize for this error.</p

Combined osimertinib, dabrafenib and trametinib treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with an osimertinib-induced BRAF V600E mutation

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have reported an acquiredBRAF V600E mutation as a potential resistance mechanism to osimertinib treatment in advanced NSCLC patients with an activating mutation in EGFR. However, the therapeutic effect of combining dabrafenib and trametinib with osimertinib remains unclear. Here we report treatment efficacy in two cases with acquired BRAF V600E mutations. METHODS: Two patients with anEGFR exon 19 deletion and a T790 M mutation, both treated with osimertinib, acquired a BRAF V600E mutation at disease progression. Following the recommendation of the molecular tumor board, a concurrent combination of dabrafenib and trametinib plus osimertinib was administered. RESULTS: Because of toxicity, one patient ultimately received a reduced dose of dabrafenib and trametinib combined with a normal dose of osimertinib. Clinical response in this patient lasted for 13.4 months. Re-biopsy upon tumor progression revealed loss ofBRAF V600E and emergence of EGFR C797S. The other patient, treated with full doses of the combined therapy, had progression with metastases in lung and brain one month after starting therapy. CONCLUSION: BRAF V600E may be a resistance mechanism induced by osimertinib in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Combined treatment using dabrafenib/trametinib concurrently with osimertinib needs to be explored for osimertinib-induced BRAF V600E mutation

Reliability of panel-based mutational signatures for immune-checkpoint-inhibition efficacy prediction in non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES: Mutational signatures (MS) are gaining traction for deriving therapeutic insights for immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). We asked if MS attributions from comprehensive targeted sequencing assays are reliable enough for predicting ICI efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).METHODS: Somatic mutations of m = 126 patients were assayed using panel-based sequencing of 523 cancer-related genes. In silico simulations of MS attributions for various panels were performed on a separate dataset of m = 101 whole genome sequenced patients. Non-synonymous mutations were deconvoluted using COSMIC v3.3 signatures and used to test a previously published machine learning classifier.RESULTS: The ICI efficacy predictor performed poorly with an accuracy of 0.51 -0.09 +0.09, average precision of 0.52 -0.11 +0.11, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.50 -0.09 +0.10. Theoretical arguments, experimental data, and in silico simulations pointed to false negative rates (FNR) related to panel size. A secondary effect was observed, where deconvolution of small ensembles of point mutations lead to reconstruction errors and misattributions. CONCLUSION: MS attributions from current targeted panel sequencing are not reliable enough to predict ICI efficacy. We suggest that, for downstream classification tasks in NSCLC, signature attributions be based on whole exome or genome sequencing instead.</p