STOP: an open label crossover trial to study ICS withdrawal in patients with a combination of obesity and low-inflammatory asthma and evaluate its effect on asthma control and quality of life

Background: Asthma patients with obesity often have a high disease burden, despite the use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). In contrast to asthmatics with normal weight, the efficacy of ICS in patients with obesity and asthma is often relatively low. Meanwhile, patients do suffer from side effects, such as weight gain, development of diabetes, cataract, or high blood pressure. The relatively poor response to ICS might be explained by the low prevalence of type 2 inflammatory patterns (T2-low) in patients with asthma and obesity. T2-low inflammation is characterized by low eosinophilic count, low Fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), no clinically allergy-driven asthma, and no need for maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS). We aim to study whether ICS can be safely withdrawn in patients with T2-low asthma and obesity while maintaining an equal level of asthma control. Secondary outcomes focus on the prevalence of ‘false-negative’ T2-low phenotypes (i.e. T2-hidden) and the effect of ICS withdrawal on parameters of the metabolic syndrome. This study will lead to a better understanding of this poorly understood subgroup and might find new treatable traits. Methods: The STOP trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, non-inferiority, open-label, crossover study aiming to assess whether ICS can be safely withdrawn in adults aged 17–75 years with T2-low asthma and obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2). Patients will be randomly divided into two arms (both n = 60). One arm will start with fixed-dose ICS (control group) and one arm will taper and subsequently stop ICS (intervention group). Patients in the intervention group will remain ICS naïve for ten weeks. After a washout of 4 weeks, patients will crossover to the other study arm. The crossover study takes 36 weeks to complete. Patients will be asked to participate in the extension study, to investigate the long-term metabolic benefits of ICS withdrawal. Discussion: This study yields valuable data on ICS tapering in patients with T2-low asthma and obesity. It informs future guidelines and committees on corticosteroid-sparing algorithms in these patients. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NL8759, registered 2020–07-06, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8759. Protocol version and date: version 2.1, 20 November 2020

Liquid biopsy-based decision support algorithms for diagnosis and subtyping of lung cancer

OBJECTIVES: Pathologic subtyping of tissue biopsies is the gold standard for the diagnosis of lung cancer (LC), which could be complicated in cases of e.g. inconclusive tissue biopsies or unreachable tumors. The diagnosis of LC could be supported in a minimally invasive manner using protein tumor markers (TMs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) measured in liquid biopsies (LBx). This study evaluates the performance of LBx-based decision-support algorithms for the diagnosis of LC and subtyping into small- and non-small-cell lung cancer (SCLC and NSCLC) aiming to directly impact clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study (NL9146), eight protein TMs (CA125, CA15.3, CEA, CYFRA 21-1, HE4, NSE, proGRP and SCCA) and ctDNA mutations in EGFR, KRAS and BRAF were analyzed in blood of 1096 patients suspected of LC. The performance of individual and combined TMs to identify LC, NSCLC or SCLC was established by evaluating logistic regression models at pre-specified positive predictive values (PPV) of ≥95% or ≥98%. The most informative protein TMs included in the multi-parametric models were selected by recursive feature elimination. RESULTS: Single TMs could identify LC, NSCLC and SCLC patients with 46%, 25% and 40% sensitivity, respectively, at pre-specified PPVs. Multi-parametric models combining TMs and ctDNA significantly improved sensitivities to 65%, 67% and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients suspected of LC, the LBx-based decision-support algorithms allowed identification of about two-thirds of all LC and NSCLC patients and half of SCLC patients. These models therefore show clinical value and may support LC diagnostics, especially in patients for whom pathologic subtyping is impossible or incomplete

Variation Between Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Clinical Staging and Treatment Recommendations for Patients With Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Background: Accurate diagnosis and staging are crucial to ensure uniform allocation to the optimal treatment methods for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but may differ among multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs). Discordance between clinical and pathologic TNM stage is particularly important for patients with locally advanced NSCLC (stage IIIA) because it may influence their chance of allocation to curative-intent treatment. We therefore aimed to study agreement on staging and treatment to gain insight into MDT decision-making. Research Question: What is the level of agreement on clinical staging and treatment recommendations among MDTs in stage IIIA NSCLC patients? Study Design and Methods: Eleven MDTs each evaluated the same 10 pathologic stage IIIA NSCLC patients in their weekly meeting (n = 110). Patients were selected purposively for their challenging nature. All MDTs received exactly the same clinical information and images per patient. We tested agreement in cT stage, cN stage, cM stage (TNM 8th edition), and treatment proposal among MDTs using Randolph's free-marginal multirater kappa. Results: Considerable variation among the MDTs was seen in T staging (κ, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.75]), N staging (κ, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35-0.83]), overall TNM staging (κ, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.35-0.72]), and treatment recommendations (κ, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]). Most variation in T stage was seen in patients with suspicion of invasion of surrounding structures, which influenced such treatment recommendations as induction therapy and type. For N stage, distinction between N1 and N2 disease was an important source of discordance among MDTs. Variation occurred between 2 patients even regarding M stage. A wide range of additional diagnostics was proposed by the MDTs. Interpretation: This study demonstrated high variation in staging and treatment of patients with stage IIIA NSCLC among MDTs in different hospitals. Although some variation may be unavoidable in these challenging patients, we should strive for more uniformity