Final results from TAIL: updated long-term efficacy of atezolizumab in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

In patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), atezolizumab therapy improves survival with manageable safety. The open-label, single-arm phase III/IV TAIL study (NCT03285763) evaluated atezolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated NSCLC, including those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, severe renal impairment, prior anti-programmed death 1 therapy, autoimmune disease, and age & GE;75 years. Patients received atezolizumab intravenously (1200 mg) every 3 weeks. At data cut-off for final analysis, the median follow-up was 36.1 (range 0.0-42.3) months. Treatment-related (TR) serious adverse events (SAEs) and TR immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were the coprimary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and duration of response. Safety and efficacy in key patient subgroups were also assessed. TR SAEs and TR irAEs occurred in 8.0% and 9.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were documented. In the overall population, median OS and PFS (95% CI) were 11.2 months (8.9 to 12.7) and 2.7 months (2.3 to 2.8), respectively. TAIL showed that atezolizumab has a similar risk-benefit profile in clinically diverse patients with previously treated NSCLC, which may guide treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from pivotal clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (POSEIDON).

In the phase 3 POSEIDON study, first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Treatment-naïve patients were randomized 1:1:1 to tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy, durvalumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoints) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire version 3 (QLQ-C30) and its 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13). We analyzed time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization by log-rank test and improvement rates by logistic regression. 972/1013 (96 %) patients randomized completed baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, with scores comparable between treatment arms. Patients receiving tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy had longer median TTD for all PRO items. Hazard ratios for TTD favored tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy for all items except diarrhea; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, constipation, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For durvalumab plus chemotherapy, median TTD was longer versus chemotherapy for all items except nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. Hazard ratios favored durvalumab plus chemotherapy for all items except appetite loss; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For both immunotherapy plus chemotherapy arms, improvement rates in all PRO items were numerically higher versus chemotherapy, with odds ratios > 1. Tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy delayed deterioration in symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with chemotherapy. Together with significant improvements in survival, these results support tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option in metastatic NSCLC

Pseudoprogression and hyperprogression secondary to immunotherapy in lung cancer

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has undergone changes that have improved the prognosis of patients. With the advent of immunotherapy, it has been possible to prolong significantly the overall and progression-free survival as well as quality of life. Nevertheless, its use represents clinical challenges which may turn into adverse events, such as progression and pseudo-progression, which are uncontrolled and often deleterious immune responses that simulate tumoral progression, generate worsening of symptoms and performance status of patients and even may lead to non-cancer related death of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 128 records (clinical trials, reports, meta-analyses) in order to provide an updated review of the treatment of NSCLC, current definitions proposed for pseudo and hyperprogression (which are not homogeneous so far), incidence, theories about their physiopathogenesis, importance of making a judicious diagnostic workup, imaging criteria as well as biochemical markers in order to predict their appearance, concluding with a brief discussion about the topic addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Since there is no definition or standardized diagnostic and imaging criteria, these entities are a topic of major interest in the area of oncologic immunotherapy, for which the following review has been generated

Primary results from TAIL: A global single-arm safety study of atezolizumab monotherapy in a diverse population of patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background Atezolizumab treatment improves survival, with manageable safety, in patients with previously treated advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. The global phase III/IV study TAIL (NCT03285763) was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer, including those not eligible for pivotal trials. Methods Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer whose disease progressed after 1-2 lines of chemotherapy were eligible for this open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, including those with severe renal impairment, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, prior anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) therapy, and autoimmune disease. Atezolizumab was administered intravenously (1200 mg every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were treatment-related serious adverse events and immune-related adverse events. Results 619 patients enrolled and 615 received atezolizumab. At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 12.6 months (95% CI 11.9 to 13.1). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 7.8% and immune-related adverse events in 8.3% of all patients and as follows, respectively, in these subgroups: renal impairment (n=78), 11.5% and 12.8%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 (n=61), 14.8% and 8.2%; prior anti-PD-1 therapy (n=39), 5.1% and 7.7%; and autoimmune disease (n=30), 6.7% and 10.0%. No new safety signals were reported. In the overall population, the median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 8.9 to 12.9), the median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.1 to 2.8) and the objective response rate was 11%. Conclusions This study confirmed the benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab monotherapy in a clinically diverse population of patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. These safety and efficacy outcomes may inform treatment decisions for patients generally excluded from checkpoint inhibitor trials. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ

Blood First Assay Screening Trial (BFAST) in Treatment-Naive Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC: Initial Results of the Phase 2 ALK-Positive Cohort.

The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is an ongoing open-label, multicohort study, prospectively evaluating the relationship between blood-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) detection of actionable genetic alterations and activity of targeted therapies or immunotherapy in treatment-naive advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We present data from the ALK-positive cohort. Patients aged more than or equal to 18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and ALK rearrangements detected by blood-based NGS using hybrid capture technology (FoundationACT) received alectinib 600 mg twice daily. Asymptomatic or treated central nervous system (CNS) metastases were permitted. Primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Secondary end points were independent review facility-assessed ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. Exploratory end points were investigator-assessed ORR in patients with baseline CNS metastases and relationship between circulating biomarkers and response. In total, 2219 patients were screened and blood-based NGS yielded results in 98.6% of the cases. Of these, 119 patients (5.4%) had ALK-positive disease; 87 were enrolled and received alectinib. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range: 2.6-18.7). Confirmed ORR was 87.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.5-93.5) by investigator and 92.0% (95% CI: 84.1-96.7) by independent review facility. Investigator-confirmed 12-month duration of response was 75.9% (95% CI: 63.6-88.2). In 35 patients (40%) with baseline CNS disease, investigator-assessed ORR was 91.4% (95% CI: 76.9-98.2). Median PFS was not reached; 12-month investigator-assessed PFS was 78.4% (95% CI: 69.1-87.7). Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profile of alectinib. These results reveal the clinical application of blood-based NGS as a method to inform clinical decision-making in ALK-positive NSCLC

Groundwater Prospecting Using a Multi-Technique Framework in the Lower Casas Grandes Basin, Chihuahua, México

Groundwater is a strategic resource for economic development, social justice, environmental sustainability, and water governance. The lower Casas Grandes River Basin, located in the state of Chihuahua, México, is in a semi-arid region with increasing groundwater demand and regional challenges such as drought and depletion of aquifers. Even though there is official information about the availability of groundwater, a comprehensive aquifer characterization requiring an interdisciplinary investigation using a diverse suite of tools and multiple data sources has yet to be carried out. This study presents a multi-technique framework to evaluate potential sites to drill for groundwater resources and reduce the risk of unsuccessful drilling. The main components of the methodology include wellhead leveling correction with a differential global positioning survey to define piezometric levels, principal component analysis using LANDSAT-8 images, application of geospatial tools, geophysics analysis using time domain electromagnetic surveys (TDES) and vertical electric soundings (VES), and structural geohydrology to define aquifer characteristics. The results showed that using the proposed framework steps improved the possibility of identifying subsurface layers with lower resistivity values that could be related to groundwater. Low resistivity values (35 Ohm-m) were found at depths from 50 to 85 m at sites where the regional static water level reached a depth of 245 m, indicating the potential location of a shallow groundwater resource at a site where the intersection of a fracture trace was identified. This procedure can be used in other regions in the world where limited information is available for groundwater exploration, thus reducing the risk of drilling dry wells in complex hydrogeological environments

Guía de práctica clínica para el manejo del cáncer de pulmón de células pequeñas: enfermedad extensa

Antecedentes: El cáncer de células pequeñas (CPCP) representa el 13-15% del total de neoplasias primarias de pulmón. Se caracteriza por su rapidez en la tasa de crecimiento y en el desarrollo de metástasis a distancia. Objetivos: Orientar y estandarizar el tratamiento del CPCP enfermedad extensa en México basado en evidencia clínica nacional e internacional. Material y métodos: Este documento se desarrolló como una colaboración del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología y la Sociedad Mexicana de Oncología en cumplimiento con estándares internacionales. Se integró un grupo conformado por oncólogos médicos, cirujanos oncólogos, cirujanos de tórax, radio-oncólogos y metodólogos con experiencia en revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura y guías de práctica clínica. Resultados: Se consensaron, por el método Delphi y en reuniones a distancia, las recomendaciones en CPCP enfermedad extensa, producto de preguntas de trabajo. Se identificó y evaluó la evidencia científica que responde a cada una de dichas preguntas clínicas antes de incorporarla al cuerpo de la guía. Conclusión: Esta guía proporciona recomendaciones clínicas para el manejo de la enfermedad extensa del CPCP y durante el proceso de toma de decisiones de los clínicos involucrados con su manejo en nuestro país para mejorar la calidad de la atención clínica para estos pacientes