Treatment options beyond immunotherapy in patients with wild-type lung adenocarcinoma: a Delphi consensus

Purpose: Immunotherapy-based approaches are standard first-line treatments for advanced/metastatic lung cancer or for chemoradiotherapy consolidation in locally advanced disease. Uncertainty on how to treat patients at disease progression prompted us to develop a consensus document on post-immunotherapy options in Spain for patients with advanced wild-type lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: After extensive literature review, a 5-member scientific committee generated 33 statements in 4 domains: general aspects (n = 4); post-durvalumab in locally advanced disease (n = 6); post-first-line immunotherapy ± chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic disease (n = 11); and post-first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic disease (n = 12). A panel of 26 lung cancer experts completed 2 Delphi iterations through an online platform rating their degree of agreement/disagreement (first-round scale 1–5 and second-round scale 1–4, 1 = strongly disagree, 4/5 = strongly agree) for each statement. Second-round consensus: ≥ 70% of responses were in categories 1/2 (disagreement) or 3/4 (agreement). Results: Consensus was reached for 2/33 statements in the first Delphi round and in 29/31 statements in the second round. Important variables informing treatment at disease progression with an immunotherapy-based treatment include: disease aggressiveness, previous treatment, accumulated toxicity, progression-free interval, PD-L1 expression, and tumour mutational burden. A platinum-based chemotherapy should follow a first-line immunotherapy treatment without chemotherapy. Treatment with docetaxel + nintedanib may be appropriate post-durvalumab in refractory patients or following progression to first-line chemotherapy + immunotherapy, or second-line chemotherapy after first-line immunotherapy, or first-line chemotherapy in some patients with low/negative PD-L1 expression, or second-line immunotherapy after first-line chemotherapy. Conclusions: To support decision making following progression to immunotherapy-based treatment in patients with advanced wild-type lung adenocarcinoma, a consensus document has been developed.The project was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim

Abemaciclib in Combination with Single-Agent Options in Patients with Stage IV Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase Ib Study

Purpose: Abemaciclib, a dual inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, has demonstrated preclinical activity in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase Ib study was conducted to test safety, MTD, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of abemaciclib in combination with other therapies for treatment in patients with metastatic NSCLC. Patients and Methods: An initial dose escalation phase was used to determine the MTD of twice-daily oral abemaciclib (150, 200 mg) plus pemetrexed, gemcitabine, or ramucirumab, followed by an expansion phase for each drug combination. Pemetrexed and gemcitabine were administered according to label. The abemaciclib plus ramucirumab study examined two dosing schedules. Results: The three study parts enrolled 86 patients; all received ≥1 dose of combination therapy. Across arms, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, neutropenia, decreased appetite, and nausea. The trial did not identify an abemaciclib MTD for the combination with pemetrexed or gemcitabine but did so for the combination of abemaciclib with days 1 and 8 ramucirumab (8 mg/kg). Plasma sample analysis showed that abemaciclib did not influence the pharmacokinetics of the combination agents and the combination agents did not affect abemaciclib exposure. The disease control rate was 57% for patients treated with abemaciclib–pemetrexed, 25% for abemaciclib–gemcitabine, and 54% for abemaciclib–ramucirumab. Median progression-free survival was 5.55, 1.58, and 4.83 months, respectively. Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile when dosed on a continuous twice-daily schedule in combination with pemetrexed, gemcitabine, or ramucirumab. Abemaciclib exposures remained consistent with those observed in single-agent studies

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of PM01183 (a tetrahydroisoquinoline, Lurbinectedin) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors

Background To determine the recommended dose (RD) of a combination of PM01183 and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Forty-five patients received escalating doses of PM01183/gemcitabine on Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (d1,8 q3wk) following a standard 3 + 3 design. Results PM01183 3.5 mg flat dose (FD)/gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was the highest dose level tested. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were mostly hematological and resulted in the expansion of a lower dose level (PM01183 3.5 mg FD/gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2)); 19 patients at this dose level were evaluable but >30% had DLT and >20% had febrile neutropenia. No DLT was observed in 11 patients treated at PM01183 3.0 mg FD/gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2), which was defined as the RD. This regimen was feasible and tolerable with manageable toxicity; mainly grade 3/4 myelosuppression. Non-hematological toxicity comprised fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and transaminases increases. Fifteen (33%) patients received ≥6 cycles with no cumulative hematological toxicity. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed no evidence of drug-drug interaction. Nine of 38 patients had response as per RECIST (complete [3%] and partial [21%]), for an overall response rate (ORR) of 24% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 12-40%). Eleven patients (29%) had disease stabilization ≥4 months. Responses were durable (median of 8.5 months): overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.7-6.5 months). Conclusions The RD for this combination is PM01183 3.0 mg FD (or 1.6 mg/m(2))/gemcitabine 800 mg/m(2) d1,8 q3wk. This schedule is well tolerated and has antitumor activity in several advanced solid tumor types

Defining aggressive or early progressing nononcogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer: a separate disease entity?

A substantial proportion of patients with nononcogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has 'aggressive disease', as reflected in short time to progression or lack of disease control with initial platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, clinical correlates of aggressive disease behavior during first-line therapy have been shown to predict greater benefit from addition of nintedanib to second-line docetaxel in adenocarcinoma NSCLC. Positive predictive effects of aggressive disease have since been reported with other anti-angiogenic agents (ramucirumab and bevacizumab), while such features may negatively impact on outcomes with nivolumab in nonsquamous NSCLC with low PD-L1 expression. Based on a review of the clinical data, we recommend aggressive nonsquamous NSCLC should be defined by progression within <6-9 months of first-line treatment initiation

CATMA: a complete Arabidopsis GST database

The Complete Arabidopsis Transcriptome Micro Array (CATMA) database contains gene sequence tag (GST) and gene model sequences for over 70% of the predicted genes in the Arabidopsis thaliana genome as well as primer sequences for GST amplification and a wide range of supplementary information. All CATMA GST sequences are specific to the gene for which they were designed, and all gene models were predicted from a complete reannotation of the genome using uniform parameters. The database is searchable by sequence name, sequence homology or direct SQL query, and is available through the CATMA website at http://www.catma.or

Recommendations for a practical implementation of circulating tumor DNA mutation testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy (LB) is a rapidly evolving diagnostic tool for precision oncology that has recently found its way into routine practice as an adjunct to tissue biopsy (TB). The concept of LB refers to any tumor-derived material, such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or circulating tumor cells that are detectable in blood. An LB is not limited to the blood and may include other fluids such as cerebrospinal fluid, pleural effusion, and urine, among others. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The objective of this paper, devised by international experts from various disciplines, is to review current challenges as well as state-of-the-art applications of ctDNA mutation testing in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We consider pragmatic scenarios for the use of ctDNA from blood plasma to identify actionable targets for therapy selection in NSCLCs. RESULTS: Clinical scenarios where ctDNA mutation testing may be implemented in clinical practice include complementary tissue and LB testing to provide the full picture of patients’ actual predictive profiles to identify resistance mechanism (i.e. secondary mutations), and ctDNA mutation testing to assist when a patient has a discordant clinical history and is suspected of showing intertumor or intratumor heterogeneity. ctDNA mutation testing may provide interesting insights into possible targets that may have been missed on the TB. Complementary ctDNA LB testing also provides an option if the tumor location is hard to biopsy or if an insufficient sample was taken. These clinical use cases highlight practical scenarios where ctDNA LB may be considered as a complementary tool to TB analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Proper implementation of ctDNA LB testing in routine clinical practice is envisioned in the near future. As the clinical evidence of utility expands, the use of LB alongside tissue sample analysis may occur in the patient cases detailed here

updated results of m7824 msb0011359c a bifunctional fusion protein targeting tgf β and pd l1 in second line 2l nsclc

n/

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of cancer patients in Spain

Background: Studies evaluating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on public healthcare systems are limited, particularly in cancer management. As no such studies have been carried out in Spain, our objective is to describe and quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients in Spanish hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Materials and methods: This retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study collected information from hospital departments treating oncology patients. An electronic questionnaire comparing outcomes and management of oncohematological patients for the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods was used. Results: Information from 78 departments (36 tertiary hospitals) was analyzed. Forty-four departments implemented adapted protocols during March 2020. Most of these (n = 38/44; 86.4%) carried out COVID-19 triage, while 26 of 44 (59.1%) carried out onsite polymerase chain reaction tests for clinically suspected cases. A shift from in-person to telephone visits was observed in 43 of 44 (97.7%) departments. Comparing the March-June 2019 and March-June 2020 periods, the number of new patients decreased by 20.8% (from 160.2 to 126.4). Decreases were also seen in the mean number of total (2858.2 versus 1686.1) and cancer (465.5 versus 367.2) biopsies, as well as the mean number of bone marrow biopsies (30.5 versus 18.6). Concerning the number of patients visiting specific cancer care departments, a decrease from 2019 to 2020 was seen for mean number of chemotherapy treatments (712.7 versus 643.8) and radiation therapy (2169.9 versus 2139.9). Finally, a reduction from 2019 to 2020 of 12.9% (from 8.6 to 7.4) in the mean number of patients included in clinical trials was noted. Conclusions: This study provides the first comprehensive data concerning the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in Spain. The pandemic caused a 20.8% decrease in newly diagnosed patients, which may impact future outcomes. Measures must be taken to ensure cancer management receives priority in times of healthcare emergencies