Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic NSCLC with high blood-based tumor mutational burden: primary analysis of BFAST cohort C randomized phase 3 trial

Non-small-cell lung cancer; Predictive markersCàncer de pulmó de cèl·lules no petites; Marcadors predictiusCáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas; Marcadores predictivosTumor mutational burden (TMB) is being explored as a predictive biomarker for cancer immunotherapy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer. BFAST (NCT03178552)—an open-label, global, multicohort trial—evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line targeted therapies or immunotherapy in patients with unresectable Stage IIIB or IV advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who were selected for biomarker status using blood-based targeted next-generation sequencing. In the Phase 3 cohort C evaluating blood-based (b)TMB as a biomarker of atezolizumab efficacy, patients with bTMB of ≥10 (N = 471) were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy per local standard of care. Cohort C did not meet its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the population with bTMB of ≥16 (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.00; P = 0.053). Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 20% in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events of special interest occurred in 42% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 26% in the chemotherapy arm. A prespecified exploratory analysis compared the bTMB clinical trial assay with the FoundationOne Liquid Companion Diagnostic assay and showed high concordance between assays. Additional exploration of bTMB to identify optimal cutoffs, confounding factors, assay improvements or cooperative biomarkers is warranted

Postprogression Outcomes for Osimertinib versus Standard-of-Care EGFR-TKI in Patients with Previously Untreated EGFR-mutated Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract Purpose: In the phase III FLAURA study, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus standard-of-care (SoC) EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib) in patients with previously untreated EGFR (exon 19 deletion or L858R) mutation-positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Interim overall survival (OS) data were encouraging, but not formally statistically significant at current maturity (25%). Here we report exploratory postprogression outcomes. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg orally, once daily) or SoC EGFR-TKI (gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg, orally, once daily). Treatment beyond disease progression was allowed if the investigator judged ongoing clinical benefit. Patients receiving SoC EGFR-TKI could cross over to receive osimertinib after independently confirmed objective disease progression with documented postprogression T790M-positive mutation status. Results: At data cutoff (June 12, 2017), 138 of 279 (49%) and 213 of 277 (77%) patients discontinued osimertinib and SoC EGFR-TKI, respectively, of whom 82 (59%) and 129 (61%), respectively, started a subsequent treatment. Median time to discontinuation of any EGFR-TKI or death was 23.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.5–not calculable (NC)] in the osimertinib arm and 16.0 months (95% CI, 14.8–18.6) in the SoC EGFR-TKI arm. Median second PFS was not reached (95% CI, 23.7–NC) in the osimertinib arm and 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2–NC) in the SoC EGFR-TKI arm [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44–0.78; P = 0.0004]. Conclusions: All postprogression endpoints showed consistent improvement with osimertinib versus SoC EGFR-TKI, providing further confidence in the interim OS data

A Guide to Implementing Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors within a Cancer Program: Experience from a Large Canadian Community Centre

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements

Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Management of MET-Altered NSCLC

In Canada, the therapeutic management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare actionable mutations differs between provinces, territories, and individual centres based on access to molecular testing and funded treatments. These variations, together with the emergence of several novel mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) factor-targeted therapies for the treatment of NSCLC, warrant the development of evidence-based consensus recommendations for the use of these agents. A Canadian expert panel was convened to define key clinical questions, review evidence, discuss practice recommendations and reach consensus on the treatment of advanced MET-altered NSCLC. Questions addressed by the panel include: 1. How should the patients most likely to benefit from MET-targeted therapies be identified? 2. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with MET exon 14 skipping mutations? 3. What are the preferred first-line and subsequent therapies for advanced NSCLC patients with de novo MET amplification? 4. What is the preferred therapy for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated NSCLC with acquired MET amplification progressing on EGFR inhibitors? 5. What are the potential strategies for overcoming resistance to MET inhibitors? Answers to these questions, along with the consensus recommendations herein, will help streamline the management of MET-altered NSCLC in routine practice, assist clinicians in therapeutic decision-making, and help ensure optimal outcomes for NSCLC patients with MET alterations

The Evolving Role of Immunotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The management of Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is complex and requires multidisciplinary input. Since the publication of the PACIFIC trial (consolidative durvalumab post concurrent chemotherapy and radiation in Stage III disease) which showed improved survival for patients in the immunotherapy arm, there has been much interest in the use of immunotherapy in the Stage III setting. In this review, we explore the biologic and clinical rationale for the use of immunotherapy in Stage III NSCLC, present previously published and upcoming data in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and concurrent realms of Stage III management, and discuss unanswered questions and challenges moving forward

A Canadian Perspective on the Challenges for Delivery of Curative-Intent Therapy in Stage III Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises a highly heterogenous group of patients with regards to patient fitness and tumour size and distribution, resulting in a wide range of treatment goals and therapy options. Curative-intent multimodality treatment should be considered in all patients with stage III NSCLC. For patients with unresectable disease who are fit, have adequate lung function, and have a disease that can be encompassed within a radical radiation volume, concurrent chemoradiation therapy (cCRT) is the standard of care and can produce cure rates of 20–30%. Recently, consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab has been recognized as the standard of care following cCRT based on significant improvement rates in overall survival at 4 years. The large heterogeneity of the stage III NSCLC population, along with the need for extensive staging procedures, multidisciplinary care, intensive cCRT, and now consolidation therapy makes the delivery of timely and optimal treatment for these patients complex. Several logistical, communication, and education factors hinder the delivery of guideline-recommended care to patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC. This commentary discusses the potential challenges patients may encounter at different points along their care pathway that can interfere with delivery of curative-intent therapy and suggests strategies for improving care delivery

Safety Related to the Timing of Radiotherapy and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Institutional Experience

Background: The safety impact of radiotherapy (RT) timing relative to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. We investigated if RT within 14 days (Interval 1) and 90 days (Interval 2) of ICI use is associated with toxicities compared to RT outside these intervals. Methods: Advanced NSCLC patients treated with both RT and ICIs were reviewed. Toxicities were graded as per CTCAE v4.0 and attributed to either ICIs or RT by clinicians. Associations between RT timing and Grade ≥2 toxicities were analyzed using logistic regression models adjusted for patient, disease, and treatment factors (α = 0.05). Results: Sixty-four patients were identified. Twenty received RT within Interval 1 and 40 within Interval 2. There were 20 Grade ≥2 toxicities in 18 (28%) patients; pneumonitis (6) and nausea (2) were most prevalent. One treatment-related death (immune encephalitis) was observed. Rates of patients with Grade ≥2 toxicities were 35%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 1 and 30%/25% in the group with/without RT within Interval 2. No significant association between RT timing relative to ICI use period and Grade ≥2 toxicities was observed. Conclusion: Albeit limited by the small sample size, the result suggested that pausing ICIs around RT use may not be necessary

Cost Savings of Expedited Care with Upfront Next-Generation Sequencing Testing versus Single-Gene Testing among Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Current Canadian Practices

This study assessed the total costs of testing, including the estimated costs of delaying care, associated with next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing strategies among patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) from a Canadian public payer perspective. A decision tree model considered testing for genomic alterations using tissue biopsy NGS or single-gene strategies following Canadian guideline recommendations. Inputs included prevalence of mNSCLC, the proportion that tested positive for each genomic alteration, rebiopsy rates, time to test results, testing/medical costs, and costs of delaying care based on literature, public data, and expert opinion. Among 1,000,000 hypothetical publicly insured adult Canadians (382 with mNSCLC), the proportion of patients that tested positive for a genomic alteration with an approved targeted therapy was 38.0% for NGS and 26.1% for single-gene strategies. The estimated mean time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation was 5.1 weeks for NGS and 9.2 weeks for single-gene strategies. Based on literature, each week of delayed care cost CAD 406, translating to total mean per-patient costs of CAD 3480 for NGS and CAD 5632 for single-gene strategies. NGS testing with mNSCLC in current Canadian practice resulted in more patients with an identified mutation, shorter time to appropriate targeted therapy initiation, and lower total testing costs compared to single-gene strategies