Lung Cancer

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Three new cancer drugs have been recommended for approval in Europe, as well as new indications for two already marketed immunotherapies. The positive opinions were issued by the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) at its September meeting.

The CHMP recommended the granting of a conditional marketing authorization for pralsetinib (Gavreto) for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Specifically, pralsetinib is indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced NSCLC not previously treated with a RET inhibitor.

Available as 100 mg capsules, pralsetinib is a RET-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, targeting oncogenic RET fusion proteins (KIF5B-RET and CCDC6-RET).

Pralsetinib’s benefits are its objective response rate and response duration in patients with RET-fusion positive NSCLC, as observed in a pivotal phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, single-arm study.

The most common side effects are anemia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, neutropenia, constipation, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, leukopenia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and hypertension.

CHMP also recommended ripretinib (Qinlock) for the treatment of adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib (Gleevec).

Available as 50 mg tablets, ripretinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively block the oncogenic KIT and PDGFRA kinases by inhibiting their active conformation.

Ripretinib improved progression-free survival in patients with GIST.

The most common side effects are fatigue, alopecia, nausea, myalgia, constipation, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, weight loss, and vomiting.

The third drug recommended for approval was zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia who have received at least one prior therapy or who are to receive the drug as first-line treatment (and are unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy).

Available as 80 mg capsules, zanubrutinib is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of BTK, inactivating the pathways necessary for B-cell proliferation, trafficking, chemotaxis, and adhesion.

Zanubrutinib has demonstrated a clinically meaningful rate of very good partial response and/or complete response.

The most common side effects are neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, upper respiratory tract infection, hemorrhage/hematoma, rash, bruising, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, pneumonia, and cough.
 

Two new indications for already marketed drugs

CHMP also recommended an extension of the indications for two immunotherapies.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) will now also have an indication for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of locally recurrent unresectable or metastatic triple negative breast cancer in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS greater than or equal to 10 and who have not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease

Nivolumab (Opdivo) received an extension of indication to include use, in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based combination chemotherapy, in the firstline treatment of adult patients with HER2 negative advanced or metastatic gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a combined positive score (CPS) greater than or equal to 5.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted an accelerated approval to mobocertinib (Exkivity, Takeda) for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations.

The drug is limited to use in patients whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and who have had the EGFR Exon 20 insertion mutation detected on an FDA-approved test.

Mobocertinib is the first oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically designed to target these mutations, which are less common than the more predominant EGFR mutations in this lung cancer.

“EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC is an underserved cancer that we have been unable to target effectively with traditional EGFR TKIs,” said Pasi Jänne, MD, PhD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, in a press statement from the maker, Takeda.

“The approval of [mobocertinib] marks another important step forward that provides physicians and their patients with a new targeted oral therapy specifically designed for this patient population that has shown clinically meaningful and sustained responses,” Dr. Jänne added.

According to the company, EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC makes up approximately 1%-2% of patients with NSCLC and is more common in Asian populations compared with Western populations.

The new approval is based on overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) results from a phase 1/2 trial consisting of 114 patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC who received prior platinum-based therapy and were treated with the 160-mg dose.

Per an independent review committee, mobocertinib demonstrated a confirmed ORR of 28% and a median DoR of 17.5 months.

Median overall survival was 24 months and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months.

The FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) companion diagnostic for mobocertinib is Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Oncomine Dx Target Test, which identifies NSCLC patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertions.

“NGS testing is critical for these patients, as it can enable more accurate diagnoses compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, which detects less than 50% of EGFR Exon 20 insertions,” according to the company.

Results from the phase 1/2 trial used in the FDA approval were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

The most common adverse reactions (greater than 20%) were diarrhea, rash, nausea, stomatitis, vomiting, decreased appetite, paronychia, fatigue, dry skin, and musculoskeletal pain, according to the company.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning for QTc prolongation and Torsades de Pointes, and warnings and precautions for interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, cardiac toxicity, and diarrhea.

“Patients with EGFR Exon 20 insertion+ NSCLC have historically faced a unique set of challenges living with a very rare lung cancer that is not only underdiagnosed but also lacking targeted treatment options that can improve response rates,” said Marcia Horn, executive director, Exon 20 Group at the International Cancer Advocacy Network, in the press statement.

The FDA review was conducted under Project Orbis, an FDA initiative that enables concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.

The new drug was also granted priority review and received breakthrough therapy, fast track, and orphan drug designations from the FDA.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A review of patients with advanced cancer and poor performance status (PS) has shown that objective responses to immunotherapy are rare and that overall survival (OS) is extremely limited. The findings have prompted an expert to argue against the use of immunotherapy for such patients, who may have little time left and very little chance of benefiting.

“It is quite clear from clinical practice that most patients with limited PS do very poorly and do not benefit from immune check point inhibitors (ICI),” Jason Luke, MD, UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and the University of Pittsburgh, said in an email.

“So, my strong opinion is that patients should not be getting an immunotherapy just because it might not cause as many side effects as chemotherapy,” he added.

“Instead of giving an immunotherapy with little chance of success, patients and families deserve to have a direct conversation about what realistic expectations [might be] and how we as the oncology community can support them to achieve whatever their personal goals are in the time that they have left,” he emphasized.

Dr. Luke was the lead author of an editorial in which he commented on the study. Both the study and the editorial were published online in JCO Oncology Practice.
 

Variety of cancers

The study was conducted by Mridula Krishnan, MD, Nebraska Medicine Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, Omaha, Nebraska, and colleagues.

The team reviewed 257 patients who had been treated with either a programmed cell death protein–1 inhibitor or programmed cell death–ligand-1 inhibitor for a variety of advanced cancers. The drugs included pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), atezolizumab (Tecentique), durvalumab (Imfinzi), and avelumab (Bavencio).

Most of the patients (71%) had good PS, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0-1 on initiation of immunotherapy; 29% of patients had poor PS, with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2.

“The primary outcome was OS stratified by ECOG PS 0-1 versus ≥2,” note the authors. Across all tumor types, OS was superior for patients in the ECOG 0-1 PS group, the investigators note. The median OS was 12.6 months, compared with only 3.1 months for patients in the ECOG greater than or equal to 2 group (P < .001).

Moreover, overall response rates for patients with a poor PS were low. Only 8%, or 6 of 75 patients with an ECOG PS of greater than or equal to 2, achieved an objective response by RECIST criteria.

This compared to an overall response rate of 23% for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1, the investigators note (P = .005).

Interestingly, the hospice referral rate for patients with a poor PS (67%) was similar to that of patients with a PS of 1-2 (61.9%), Dr. Krishnan and colleagues observe.

Those with a poor PS were more like to die in-hospital (28.6%) than were patients with a good PS (15.1%; P = .035). The authors point out that it is well known that outcomes with chemotherapy are worse among patients who experience a decline in functional reserve, owing to increased susceptibility to toxicity and complications.

“Regardless of age, patients with ECOG PS >2 usually have poor tolerability to chemotherapy, and this correlates with worse survival outcome,” they emphasize. There is as yet no clear guidance regarding the impact of PS on ICI treatment response, although “there should be,” Dr. Luke believes.

“In a patient with declining performance status, especially ECOG PS 3-4 but potentially 2 as well, there is little likelihood that the functional and immune reserve of the patient will be adequate to mount a robust antitumor response,” he elaborated.

“It’s not impossible, but trying for it should not come at the expense of engaging about end-of-life care and maximizing the palliative opportunities that many only have a short window of time in which to pursue,” he added.

Again, Dr. Luke strongly believes that just giving an ICI without engaging in a frank conversation with the patient and their families – which happens all too often, he feels – is absolutely not the way to go when treating patients with a poor PS and little time left.

“Patients and families might be better served by having a more direct and frank conversation about what the likelihood [is] that ICI therapy will actually do,” Dr. Luke stressed.

In their editorial, Dr. Luke and colleagues write: “Overall, we as an oncology community need to improve our communication with patients regarding goals of care and end-of-life considerations as opposed to reflexive treatment initiation,” he writes.

“Our duty, first and foremost, should focus on the person sitting in front of us – taking a step back may be the best way to move forward with compassionate care,” they add.

The authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Progression free survival was significantly better in unresectable stage 3 non–small cell lung cancer when patients were treated with durvalumab in combination with other immunotherapies, instead of durvalumab alone, following chemoradiotherapy.

Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.

They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.

Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.

Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).

There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.

The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.

“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.

The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.

Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.

The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was significantly better in unresectable stage 3 non–small cell lung cancer when patients were treated with durvalumab in combination with other immunotherapies, instead of durvalumab alone, following chemoradiotherapy.

Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.

They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.

Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.

Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).

There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.

The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.

“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.

The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.

Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.

The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

Progression free survival was significantly better in unresectable stage 3 non–small cell lung cancer when patients were treated with durvalumab in combination with other immunotherapies, instead of durvalumab alone, following chemoradiotherapy.

Both combinations – durvalumab plus either the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or the anti-NKG2A mAb monalizumab – also numerically improved objective response rate. “Safety profiles were consistent across arms and no new safety signals were identified,” said Alexandre Martinez-Marti, MD, the lead investigator on the phase 2 trial, dubbed COAST, which he presented (abstract LBA42) at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

“These data support further evaluations of these combinations,” said Dr. Martinez-Marti, also a thoracic medical oncologist at the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona.

Durvalumab is already established as a standard of care option for patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC who don’t progress after concurrent chemoradiation. There’s been preliminary data suggesting the benefits might be greater with oleclumab or monalizumab, so the study team looked into the issue.

They randomized 66 patients with unresectable stage 3 NSCLC and no progression after chemoradiotherapy to durvalumab 1,500 mg IV every 4 weeks; 59 others to durvalumab at the same dosage plus oleclumab 3,000 mg IV every 2 weeks for the first two cycles then every 4 weeks, and 61 were randomized to durvalumab plus monalizumab 750 mg IV every 2 weeks.

Patients were treated for up to 12 months, and they started treatment no later than 42 days after completing chemoradiation.

Over a median follow-up of 11.5 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months in the durvalumab arm, but 15.1 months with the monalizumab combination (PFS hazard ratio versus durvalumab alone, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.85), and not reached in the oleclumab arm (PFS HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75).

There were only a few complete responders across the study groups. Partial responses rates were 22.4% of the durvalumab alone arm, 36.7% in the oleclumab group, and 32.3% in the monalizumab arm.

The investigator assessed objective response rate was 25.4% with durvalumab alone, 38.3% in the oleclumab group, and 37.1% with the monalizumab combination. Curves started to separate from durvalumab monotherapy at around 2-4 months.

“Overall, the safety profiles of the two combinations were generally similar to the safety profile of durvalumab alone,” Dr. Martinez-Marti said. The rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent events incidence was 39.4% with durvalumab, 40.7% the oleclumab combination, and 27.9% with monalizumab.

The most common grade 3/4 events were pneumonia (5.9%) and decreased lymphocyte count (3.2%); both were less common with the monalizumab combination.

Combined rates of pneumonitis and radiation pneumonitis of any grade were 21.2% with durvalumab, 28.8% in the oleclumab group, and 21.3% with monalizumab.

The groups were generally well balanced at baseline. The majority of subjects were men, White, and former smokers. Most subjects had stage 3A or 3B disease.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed numerous ties to the company, including Dr. Martinez-Marti, who reported personal fees, travel expenses, and other connections.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

While postoperative conformal radiotherapy (PORT) reduces the risk of mediastinal relapse in completely resected non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal nodal metastases (N2), it does not have a significant impact on disease-free and overall survival, according to a report (abstract 1170O) recently presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

The report was an update on the LungART international clinical trial, which, at the 2020 ESMO meeting, was shown not to improve disease-free survival over the course of 3 years. The update showed that, in addition to the lack of disease-free survival benefit, there was also no difference in metastases, and patients randomized to PORT had higher rates of death and grade 3/4 cardiopulmonary toxicity. The investigators returned this year to expand on another finding from the trial, a 51% reduction in the risk of mediastinal relapse with postoperative radiotherapy. The new analysis suggests there might still be a role for PORT in select patients, perhaps those with heavy nodal involvement, said lead investigator and presenter Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, radiation oncologist at the Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France.

For now, “personalized prescription of PORT should be based on prognostic factors of relapse and joint assessment of toxicity and efficacy,” she said.

Study discussant Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, head of thoracic tumors Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, agreed that there might still be a benefit for people with multiple N2 nodal station involvement, but at present, she said, “for me PORT cannot be the standard of care ... given the toxicity and mortality among PORT patients in LungART.”

The trial randomized 501 patients with non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal involvement to either PORT at 54 Gy over 5.5 weeks or no further treatment following complete resection. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed.

The 3-year mediastinal relapse-free survival was 72.26% in the control arm but 86.06% with PORT (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.69).

“There is a significant difference” when it comes to mediastinal relapse, and “patients who have PORT do better. If we look at the location of mediastinal relapse, most [patients] relapse within the initially involved node. This is important information,” Dr. Le Pechoux said.

For left-sided tumors, the most frequent sites of mediastinal relapse were thoracic lymph node stations 7, 4L, and 4R. For right sided tumors, the most frequent stations were 4R, 2R and 7.

Prognostic factors for disease-free survival included quality of resection, extent of mediastinal involvement, and lymph node ratio (involved/explored). Nodal involvement was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival, but PORT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).

Mediastinal involvement with more than two node stations and less than an RO, or microscopically margin-negative resection, increased the risk of relapse.

The work was funded by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, Institute Gustave Roussy, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Pechoux and Dr. Garido disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, and other companies.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

While postoperative conformal radiotherapy (PORT) reduces the risk of mediastinal relapse in completely resected non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal nodal metastases (N2), it does not have a significant impact on disease-free and overall survival, according to a report (abstract 1170O) recently presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

The report was an update on the LungART international clinical trial, which, at the 2020 ESMO meeting, was shown not to improve disease-free survival over the course of 3 years. The update showed that, in addition to the lack of disease-free survival benefit, there was also no difference in metastases, and patients randomized to PORT had higher rates of death and grade 3/4 cardiopulmonary toxicity. The investigators returned this year to expand on another finding from the trial, a 51% reduction in the risk of mediastinal relapse with postoperative radiotherapy. The new analysis suggests there might still be a role for PORT in select patients, perhaps those with heavy nodal involvement, said lead investigator and presenter Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, radiation oncologist at the Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France.

For now, “personalized prescription of PORT should be based on prognostic factors of relapse and joint assessment of toxicity and efficacy,” she said.

Study discussant Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, head of thoracic tumors Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, agreed that there might still be a benefit for people with multiple N2 nodal station involvement, but at present, she said, “for me PORT cannot be the standard of care ... given the toxicity and mortality among PORT patients in LungART.”

The trial randomized 501 patients with non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal involvement to either PORT at 54 Gy over 5.5 weeks or no further treatment following complete resection. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed.

The 3-year mediastinal relapse-free survival was 72.26% in the control arm but 86.06% with PORT (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.69).

“There is a significant difference” when it comes to mediastinal relapse, and “patients who have PORT do better. If we look at the location of mediastinal relapse, most [patients] relapse within the initially involved node. This is important information,” Dr. Le Pechoux said.

For left-sided tumors, the most frequent sites of mediastinal relapse were thoracic lymph node stations 7, 4L, and 4R. For right sided tumors, the most frequent stations were 4R, 2R and 7.

Prognostic factors for disease-free survival included quality of resection, extent of mediastinal involvement, and lymph node ratio (involved/explored). Nodal involvement was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival, but PORT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).

Mediastinal involvement with more than two node stations and less than an RO, or microscopically margin-negative resection, increased the risk of relapse.

The work was funded by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, Institute Gustave Roussy, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Pechoux and Dr. Garido disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, and other companies.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

While postoperative conformal radiotherapy (PORT) reduces the risk of mediastinal relapse in completely resected non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal nodal metastases (N2), it does not have a significant impact on disease-free and overall survival, according to a report (abstract 1170O) recently presented at the 2021 European Society for Medical Oncology Congress on Sept. 17.

The report was an update on the LungART international clinical trial, which, at the 2020 ESMO meeting, was shown not to improve disease-free survival over the course of 3 years. The update showed that, in addition to the lack of disease-free survival benefit, there was also no difference in metastases, and patients randomized to PORT had higher rates of death and grade 3/4 cardiopulmonary toxicity. The investigators returned this year to expand on another finding from the trial, a 51% reduction in the risk of mediastinal relapse with postoperative radiotherapy. The new analysis suggests there might still be a role for PORT in select patients, perhaps those with heavy nodal involvement, said lead investigator and presenter Cecile Le Pechoux, MD, radiation oncologist at the Gustave Roussy cancer treatment center in Villejuif, France.

For now, “personalized prescription of PORT should be based on prognostic factors of relapse and joint assessment of toxicity and efficacy,” she said.

Study discussant Pilar Garrido, MD, PhD, head of thoracic tumors Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, agreed that there might still be a benefit for people with multiple N2 nodal station involvement, but at present, she said, “for me PORT cannot be the standard of care ... given the toxicity and mortality among PORT patients in LungART.”

The trial randomized 501 patients with non–small cell lung cancer with mediastinal involvement to either PORT at 54 Gy over 5.5 weeks or no further treatment following complete resection. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were allowed.

The 3-year mediastinal relapse-free survival was 72.26% in the control arm but 86.06% with PORT (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.69).

“There is a significant difference” when it comes to mediastinal relapse, and “patients who have PORT do better. If we look at the location of mediastinal relapse, most [patients] relapse within the initially involved node. This is important information,” Dr. Le Pechoux said.

For left-sided tumors, the most frequent sites of mediastinal relapse were thoracic lymph node stations 7, 4L, and 4R. For right sided tumors, the most frequent stations were 4R, 2R and 7.

Prognostic factors for disease-free survival included quality of resection, extent of mediastinal involvement, and lymph node ratio (involved/explored). Nodal involvement was a significant prognostic factor for overall survival, but PORT was not (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4).

Mediastinal involvement with more than two node stations and less than an RO, or microscopically margin-negative resection, increased the risk of relapse.

The work was funded by the French National Cancer Institute, French Health Ministry, Institute Gustave Roussy, and Cancer Research UK. Dr. Pechoux and Dr. Garido disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, and other companies.

This article was updated 9/24/21.

aotto@mdedge.com

A growing body of research suggests there may be an optimal duration of immunotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after which it can be de-escalated or discontinued to minimize toxicity and costs while maintaining long-term efficacy.

However, the research to date does not provide a clear picture of which patients will achieve this “exceptional and durable response” and at which point patients can safely reduce or withdraw from treatment, according to Yasushi Goto, MD, PhD, a staff doctor in the Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo.

Dr. Goto presented the latest evidence and explored the current unknowns surrounding immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC in a session this week at the virtual World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In addition to a toxicity and quality-of-life benefit for patients, immunotherapy de-escalation could have a significant impact on the costs of care, Dr. Goto stressed. The rising cost of new cancer treatments represents a “crisis” in terms of the affordability of health care, he said, and reducing these costs represents an “urgent global issue.”
 

Evidence on discontinuing treatment

Dr. Goto kicked off the session by emphasizing how drastically immunotherapy has enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC and other cancers.

This success has brought a pressing clinical question to the forefront: How long should we treat patients with immunotherapy?

The question arose over 10 years ago when ipilimumab (Yervoy) was granted FDA approval for patients with metastatic melanoma, but only for a total of four doses because of the drug’s toxicity.

“However, some patients had very lasting efficacy with the drug, even after discontinuation,” Dr. Goto said, which raised the exciting prospect that patients could achieve a functional cure with immunotherapy.

Evidence highlighting this lasting effect among patients with NSCLC soon emerged as well. A 2015 study, for instance, indicated that, despite toxicities, 50% of patients receiving nivolumab (Opdivo) continued to have a treatment effect more than 9 months after their last dose.

A 2021 analysis of patients receiving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) found that 48% of patients were disease-free after 5 years, despite having discontinued treatment after 2 years.

These investigators also found that toxicities accumulated over time – new grade greater than or equal to three toxicities occurred in 10% of patients every 6 months – which makes it particularly important to consider limiting the duration of therapy, Dr. Goto noted.

Only one randomized study to date – the CheckMate 153 trial – has explicitly explored outcomes associated with discontinuing immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC. In this study, patients still receiving nivolumab after 1 year were randomized to continue or stop therapy. Both median progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy versus those who stopped at 1 year.  

However, Dr. Goto noted that limitations in the study design, including the fact that many patients were censored at an early stage, made the results “nonconfirmatory” and he would like to see more data.
 

The role of re-treatment

Finding the optimal time to discontinue treatment is critical but even if patients stop treatment before they achieve long-lasting benefits, they can still be retreated successfully.

Two recent studies examined the potential benefits of re-treatment. In the 2021 KEYNOTE-010 analysis, 21 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab, at a response rate of 53% and a disease control rate of 81%.

In another recent study, investigators found that among 78 patients with melanoma who had discontinued either nivolumab or pembrolizumab and were re-treated after disease progression, 15% (5 of 34) receiving a single anti-PD-1 agent responded to retreatment and 25% (11 of 44) escalated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab exhibited a response.

Dr. Goto noted that there are also ongoing randomized studies examining the optimal duration of immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. One that he is involved in, the SAVE study, is enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC who have responded to anti-PD-1 agents for over a year and will compare overall survival in those who stop therapy versus those who continue. In addition, given the “growing importance” of biomarkers as a prediction tool, Dr. Goto plans to integrate circulating tumor DNA testing to help identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy discontinuation.

If successful, such approaches could “disruptively decrease prescribing costs,” by lowering doses or dose frequency, shortening the treatment duration, or by substituting therapies with fewer adverse effects, Dr. Goto said.
 

Discussing de-escalation in practice

During the discussion period after his talk, session co-chair Loretta Erhunmwunsee, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, asked Dr. Goto what his current practice is in regard to de-escalation.

He replied that, in Japan, physicians are allowed to continue immunotherapy beyond 2 years, but “many patients stop their immune checkpoint inhibitor due to toxicity,” even if it is minor.

Exploring evidence surrounding the optimal duration of therapy, session cochair Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, pointed to collaborative studies in colon cancer that looked at chemotherapy duration, for example looking at 3 versus 6 months of treatment.

Dr. Gyawali wondered whether the same could be achieved in lung cancer to test the non-inferiority of shorter duration of immunotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression.

Dr. Goto noted that the biggest difference in the current context of NSCLC is the toxicity incurred by both the adjuvant chemotherapy and the immunotherapy, making the overall benefit to the patient “very difficult to show.” Consequently, patients may not be willing to join a randomized trial in which they could experience additional toxicity for uncertain benefit.

City of Hope oncologist H. Jack West, MD, who presented at the session, said he would “love to see more trials looking at de-escalation and seeing whether we do just as well on efficacy with lower toxicity and lower costs.”

Instead, “we are seeing reports of the fourth entrant into the field that just recapitulates things we already know,” which is “terribly disappointing.”

“I really wish we could vote with our feet more and not participate in trials that are completely redundant compared to what we’ve had for years already,” Dr. West said.

No funding for this study was declared. Dr. Goto disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Illumina, Kyorin, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi Pharma, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. West disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati, and Regeneron and is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests there may be an optimal duration of immunotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after which it can be de-escalated or discontinued to minimize toxicity and costs while maintaining long-term efficacy.

However, the research to date does not provide a clear picture of which patients will achieve this “exceptional and durable response” and at which point patients can safely reduce or withdraw from treatment, according to Yasushi Goto, MD, PhD, a staff doctor in the Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo.

Dr. Goto presented the latest evidence and explored the current unknowns surrounding immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC in a session this week at the virtual World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In addition to a toxicity and quality-of-life benefit for patients, immunotherapy de-escalation could have a significant impact on the costs of care, Dr. Goto stressed. The rising cost of new cancer treatments represents a “crisis” in terms of the affordability of health care, he said, and reducing these costs represents an “urgent global issue.”
 

Evidence on discontinuing treatment

Dr. Goto kicked off the session by emphasizing how drastically immunotherapy has enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC and other cancers.

This success has brought a pressing clinical question to the forefront: How long should we treat patients with immunotherapy?

The question arose over 10 years ago when ipilimumab (Yervoy) was granted FDA approval for patients with metastatic melanoma, but only for a total of four doses because of the drug’s toxicity.

“However, some patients had very lasting efficacy with the drug, even after discontinuation,” Dr. Goto said, which raised the exciting prospect that patients could achieve a functional cure with immunotherapy.

Evidence highlighting this lasting effect among patients with NSCLC soon emerged as well. A 2015 study, for instance, indicated that, despite toxicities, 50% of patients receiving nivolumab (Opdivo) continued to have a treatment effect more than 9 months after their last dose.

A 2021 analysis of patients receiving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) found that 48% of patients were disease-free after 5 years, despite having discontinued treatment after 2 years.

These investigators also found that toxicities accumulated over time – new grade greater than or equal to three toxicities occurred in 10% of patients every 6 months – which makes it particularly important to consider limiting the duration of therapy, Dr. Goto noted.

Only one randomized study to date – the CheckMate 153 trial – has explicitly explored outcomes associated with discontinuing immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC. In this study, patients still receiving nivolumab after 1 year were randomized to continue or stop therapy. Both median progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy versus those who stopped at 1 year.  

However, Dr. Goto noted that limitations in the study design, including the fact that many patients were censored at an early stage, made the results “nonconfirmatory” and he would like to see more data.
 

The role of re-treatment

Finding the optimal time to discontinue treatment is critical but even if patients stop treatment before they achieve long-lasting benefits, they can still be retreated successfully.

Two recent studies examined the potential benefits of re-treatment. In the 2021 KEYNOTE-010 analysis, 21 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab, at a response rate of 53% and a disease control rate of 81%.

In another recent study, investigators found that among 78 patients with melanoma who had discontinued either nivolumab or pembrolizumab and were re-treated after disease progression, 15% (5 of 34) receiving a single anti-PD-1 agent responded to retreatment and 25% (11 of 44) escalated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab exhibited a response.

Dr. Goto noted that there are also ongoing randomized studies examining the optimal duration of immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. One that he is involved in, the SAVE study, is enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC who have responded to anti-PD-1 agents for over a year and will compare overall survival in those who stop therapy versus those who continue. In addition, given the “growing importance” of biomarkers as a prediction tool, Dr. Goto plans to integrate circulating tumor DNA testing to help identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy discontinuation.

If successful, such approaches could “disruptively decrease prescribing costs,” by lowering doses or dose frequency, shortening the treatment duration, or by substituting therapies with fewer adverse effects, Dr. Goto said.
 

Discussing de-escalation in practice

During the discussion period after his talk, session co-chair Loretta Erhunmwunsee, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, asked Dr. Goto what his current practice is in regard to de-escalation.

He replied that, in Japan, physicians are allowed to continue immunotherapy beyond 2 years, but “many patients stop their immune checkpoint inhibitor due to toxicity,” even if it is minor.

Exploring evidence surrounding the optimal duration of therapy, session cochair Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, pointed to collaborative studies in colon cancer that looked at chemotherapy duration, for example looking at 3 versus 6 months of treatment.

Dr. Gyawali wondered whether the same could be achieved in lung cancer to test the non-inferiority of shorter duration of immunotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression.

Dr. Goto noted that the biggest difference in the current context of NSCLC is the toxicity incurred by both the adjuvant chemotherapy and the immunotherapy, making the overall benefit to the patient “very difficult to show.” Consequently, patients may not be willing to join a randomized trial in which they could experience additional toxicity for uncertain benefit.

City of Hope oncologist H. Jack West, MD, who presented at the session, said he would “love to see more trials looking at de-escalation and seeing whether we do just as well on efficacy with lower toxicity and lower costs.”

Instead, “we are seeing reports of the fourth entrant into the field that just recapitulates things we already know,” which is “terribly disappointing.”

“I really wish we could vote with our feet more and not participate in trials that are completely redundant compared to what we’ve had for years already,” Dr. West said.

No funding for this study was declared. Dr. Goto disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Illumina, Kyorin, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi Pharma, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. West disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati, and Regeneron and is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research suggests there may be an optimal duration of immunotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), after which it can be de-escalated or discontinued to minimize toxicity and costs while maintaining long-term efficacy.

However, the research to date does not provide a clear picture of which patients will achieve this “exceptional and durable response” and at which point patients can safely reduce or withdraw from treatment, according to Yasushi Goto, MD, PhD, a staff doctor in the Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo.

Dr. Goto presented the latest evidence and explored the current unknowns surrounding immunotherapy de-escalation in NSCLC in a session this week at the virtual World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In addition to a toxicity and quality-of-life benefit for patients, immunotherapy de-escalation could have a significant impact on the costs of care, Dr. Goto stressed. The rising cost of new cancer treatments represents a “crisis” in terms of the affordability of health care, he said, and reducing these costs represents an “urgent global issue.”
 

Evidence on discontinuing treatment

Dr. Goto kicked off the session by emphasizing how drastically immunotherapy has enhanced outcomes for patients with NSCLC and other cancers.

This success has brought a pressing clinical question to the forefront: How long should we treat patients with immunotherapy?

The question arose over 10 years ago when ipilimumab (Yervoy) was granted FDA approval for patients with metastatic melanoma, but only for a total of four doses because of the drug’s toxicity.

“However, some patients had very lasting efficacy with the drug, even after discontinuation,” Dr. Goto said, which raised the exciting prospect that patients could achieve a functional cure with immunotherapy.

Evidence highlighting this lasting effect among patients with NSCLC soon emerged as well. A 2015 study, for instance, indicated that, despite toxicities, 50% of patients receiving nivolumab (Opdivo) continued to have a treatment effect more than 9 months after their last dose.

A 2021 analysis of patients receiving pembrolizumab (Keytruda) found that 48% of patients were disease-free after 5 years, despite having discontinued treatment after 2 years.

These investigators also found that toxicities accumulated over time – new grade greater than or equal to three toxicities occurred in 10% of patients every 6 months – which makes it particularly important to consider limiting the duration of therapy, Dr. Goto noted.

Only one randomized study to date – the CheckMate 153 trial – has explicitly explored outcomes associated with discontinuing immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC. In this study, patients still receiving nivolumab after 1 year were randomized to continue or stop therapy. Both median progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in patients who continued therapy versus those who stopped at 1 year.  

However, Dr. Goto noted that limitations in the study design, including the fact that many patients were censored at an early stage, made the results “nonconfirmatory” and he would like to see more data.
 

The role of re-treatment

Finding the optimal time to discontinue treatment is critical but even if patients stop treatment before they achieve long-lasting benefits, they can still be retreated successfully.

Two recent studies examined the potential benefits of re-treatment. In the 2021 KEYNOTE-010 analysis, 21 patients received a second course of pembrolizumab, at a response rate of 53% and a disease control rate of 81%.

In another recent study, investigators found that among 78 patients with melanoma who had discontinued either nivolumab or pembrolizumab and were re-treated after disease progression, 15% (5 of 34) receiving a single anti-PD-1 agent responded to retreatment and 25% (11 of 44) escalated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab exhibited a response.

Dr. Goto noted that there are also ongoing randomized studies examining the optimal duration of immunotherapy in advanced melanoma. One that he is involved in, the SAVE study, is enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC who have responded to anti-PD-1 agents for over a year and will compare overall survival in those who stop therapy versus those who continue. In addition, given the “growing importance” of biomarkers as a prediction tool, Dr. Goto plans to integrate circulating tumor DNA testing to help identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy discontinuation.

If successful, such approaches could “disruptively decrease prescribing costs,” by lowering doses or dose frequency, shortening the treatment duration, or by substituting therapies with fewer adverse effects, Dr. Goto said.
 

Discussing de-escalation in practice

During the discussion period after his talk, session co-chair Loretta Erhunmwunsee, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California, asked Dr. Goto what his current practice is in regard to de-escalation.

He replied that, in Japan, physicians are allowed to continue immunotherapy beyond 2 years, but “many patients stop their immune checkpoint inhibitor due to toxicity,” even if it is minor.

Exploring evidence surrounding the optimal duration of therapy, session cochair Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, pointed to collaborative studies in colon cancer that looked at chemotherapy duration, for example looking at 3 versus 6 months of treatment.

Dr. Gyawali wondered whether the same could be achieved in lung cancer to test the non-inferiority of shorter duration of immunotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression.

Dr. Goto noted that the biggest difference in the current context of NSCLC is the toxicity incurred by both the adjuvant chemotherapy and the immunotherapy, making the overall benefit to the patient “very difficult to show.” Consequently, patients may not be willing to join a randomized trial in which they could experience additional toxicity for uncertain benefit.

City of Hope oncologist H. Jack West, MD, who presented at the session, said he would “love to see more trials looking at de-escalation and seeing whether we do just as well on efficacy with lower toxicity and lower costs.”

Instead, “we are seeing reports of the fourth entrant into the field that just recapitulates things we already know,” which is “terribly disappointing.”

“I really wish we could vote with our feet more and not participate in trials that are completely redundant compared to what we’ve had for years already,” Dr. West said.

No funding for this study was declared. Dr. Goto disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Illumina, Kyorin, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Shionogi Pharma, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. West disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, EQRx, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Mirati, and Regeneron and is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with life-limiting advanced lung cancer often experience intense grief and loss.

Addressing patients’ physical symptoms – drug side effects, trouble breathing, pain, fatigue – alongside their psychological and spiritual distress – depression, anxiety, fear of death – is critical to restoring their dignity and improving their quality of life, say palliative care experts.

Palliative care aims “to anticipate, prevent, and reduce suffering, promote adaptive coping, and support the best possible quality of life ... regardless of the stage of the disease or the need for other therapies,” commented Andreas Charalambous, RN, PhD, assistant professor (acting) of oncology and palliative care at the Cyprus University of Technology in Limassol, Cyprus.

He was speaking at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where he chaired a special session entitled, “Grief and Loss in Palliative Care.”  

Research shows that the use of palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and lower costs of care for patients with cancer. But a 2015 Palliative Care Survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network found that although the majority of leading U.S. cancer centers have inpatient palliative care services, most reported insufficient capacity to meet the demand, and that home-based palliative care services and inpatient units were much less common.

Dr. Charalambous emphasized the importance of enhancing the use and quality of palliative care services for patients with advanced lung cancer.

During the session, experts discussed an array of strategies geared towards relieving physical symptoms as well as psychological and spiritual stressors.  
 

Physical activity: Establishing what’s possible

Grief and loss are “natural and normal” reactions to advanced cancer, commented Celia Marston, MPallCare, clinical lead for occupational therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

Patients experience feelings of loss around their independence, relationships, physical and cognitive functioning, which in turn impacts their sense of identity, daily routines, and plans for the future.

According to Ms. Marston, the rapid physical decline patients experience in the last 3 months of life is particularly “distressing,” which is why helping patients continue to perform everyday tasks is so critical. 

In clinical practice, this means providing patients palliative rehabilitation focused on maintaining at least a degree of their normal physical activity, which allows them “to adjust and contend with that decline,” Ms. Marston said. It also requires understanding what is important to patients and supporting those requests.

According to Ms. Marston, optimizing patient function can help maintain or slow that rate of physical decline, or sometimes improve it. But even partial activity can be “equally if not more important” than full participation in an activity. Patients “want to be active, they want to test what they can and can’t do” and establish what is possible, she said.
 

Nonpharmacological approaches to symptom control

Addressing strategies to relieve physical symptoms in patients with lung cancer, Alex Molassiotis, RN, PhD, chair professor of nursing at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, explored the role nonpharmacological interventions can play.

Dr. Molassiotis highlighted the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for the Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer, which discuss a range of nonpharmacological strategies to manage respiratory distress, in particular. These include supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as well as breathing techniques, posture, relaxation, meditation, physical and music therapy, and acupressure or reflexology.

In a 2015 randomized controlled feasibility trial, Dr. Molassiotis explored the effectiveness of one such strategy – inspiratory muscle training – in patients with lung cancer and reported improvements in the respiratory symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, and fatigue. A 2020 trial of breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma also showed the intervention improved average dyspnea, control over dyspnea, and anxiety.

However, Dr. Molassiotis cautioned, many other nonpharmacological interventions have only “limited” evidence of effectiveness, and a “stronger evidence base” is required.

Physicians should nevertheless talk to patients about their respiratory symptoms and discuss the available options, taking into account the “major impact” these symptoms have on their quality of life.
 

Integrating psychological strategies

More than 40% of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer experience moderate to severe death anxiety, and about one in four patients with any stage of lung cancer experience significant depression and demoralization, research shows.

During the session, Gary Rodin, MD, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, stressed the “need to intervene” and outlined approaches relevant to different stages of the disease journey.

At the onset, he said, Emotion and Symptom-Focused Engagement (EASE) can help relieve patients’ physical symptoms and traumatic stress. Those with more advanced disease can receive Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, or Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which Dr. Rodin and his colleague Sarah Hales, MD, PhD, developed. And patients at the end of life may benefit from Dignity Therapy, a short form of psychotherapy focused on helping patients find comfort and meaning in their final days.  

Dr. Rodin focused on the role of CALM for those with advanced disease. CALM encompasses three to six sessions of a semi-structured intervention given over several months. The intervention focuses on four domains: 1. Symptom management and communication with healthcare providers; 2. Changes in oneself and relationships with others; 3. Spirituality, or finding a sense of meaning and purpose; and 4. Approaches to sustain hope and face mortality.

Dr. Rodin led a 2018 randomized trial comparing CALM with usual care, which showed the intervention was associated with significant reductions in depression symptoms and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer at three and six months, as well as better patient communication and preparedness for the end of life. Patients reported that the intervention gave them “complete freedom” to communicate about themselves, their condition, and their life.

Evidence-based psychological interventions “should be offered as standard of care” to patients with lung cancer, Dr. Rodin said.
 

Enhancing patient-doctor communication

Having conversations early on about the goals of cancer care is particularly critical, according to Rachelle E. Bernacki, MD, director of quality initiatives, psychosocial oncology, and palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

These conversations between physicians, patients, and family members give patients and loved ones time to make informed decisions, improve patients’ quality of care and satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of using hospice care, Dr. Bernacki explained.

But the reality is that these conversations don’t happen often enough. Less than one third of patients with end-stage diagnoses reported having an end-of-life discussion with their physician, and when the topic does arise, it is typically a few weeks before a patient passes away.

Moreover, these conversations “often fail to address key elements of quality discussions,” Dr. Bernacki commented.

Part of the problem is that many doctors lack the necessary training, face time constraints, or are uncertain about when or how to initiate these conversations.  

Although challenging, patients want to have these discussions. Nine of 10 Americans believe doctors should talk about end-of-life issues with their patients, and 75% of older patients want to know their prognosis so they can prepare for the future, make informed medical decisions, and optimize the time they have left.

Dr. Bernacki highlighted a framework that can help clinicians have productive end-of-life conversations with patients. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, outlines key steps, which include scheduling the conversation, delivering a prognosis, and exploring what matters to the patient. The guide also explores how to communicate effectively with patients, such as asking permission and clarifying questions as well as engaging in active listening.

Above all, Dr. Bernacki stressed that physicians should “listen more than talk” and avoid providing premature assurance when addressing the prognosis. “Many fears will arise that cannot be fixed, but talking about them makes them more bearable for the patient,” she said.
 

Physicians experience grief, too

Patients with advanced lung cancer are not the only ones who face loss and distress. More than half of physicians treating terminally ill patients can experience burnout, according to Sonia Oyola, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine.

In her presentation, Dr. Oyola highlighted strategies physicians can use to manage their grief.

The first step is simply acknowledging feelings of loss. But every physician will have a “unique way of grieving and caring for themselves,” she said.

In general, the literature supports several approaches for managing grief: engaging in death talks and self-attunement or personal awareness training as well as providing end-of-life education in medical schools.

On the personal awareness front, Dr. Oyola highlighted a narrative medicine exercise where physicians write about the patient and reflect on what moved or touched them, what surprised them, and what inspired them.

Pursuing this kind of exercise allows physicians to reflect on their experiences in a way “we often do not have the opportunity to do” and could prevent some of the “devastating consequences in our practices, such as burnout,” Dr. Oyola said.

No funding declared. Dr. Molassiotis has reported a relationship with Helsinn. No other relevant financial relationships declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with life-limiting advanced lung cancer often experience intense grief and loss.

Addressing patients’ physical symptoms – drug side effects, trouble breathing, pain, fatigue – alongside their psychological and spiritual distress – depression, anxiety, fear of death – is critical to restoring their dignity and improving their quality of life, say palliative care experts.

Palliative care aims “to anticipate, prevent, and reduce suffering, promote adaptive coping, and support the best possible quality of life ... regardless of the stage of the disease or the need for other therapies,” commented Andreas Charalambous, RN, PhD, assistant professor (acting) of oncology and palliative care at the Cyprus University of Technology in Limassol, Cyprus.

He was speaking at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where he chaired a special session entitled, “Grief and Loss in Palliative Care.”  

Research shows that the use of palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and lower costs of care for patients with cancer. But a 2015 Palliative Care Survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network found that although the majority of leading U.S. cancer centers have inpatient palliative care services, most reported insufficient capacity to meet the demand, and that home-based palliative care services and inpatient units were much less common.

Dr. Charalambous emphasized the importance of enhancing the use and quality of palliative care services for patients with advanced lung cancer.

During the session, experts discussed an array of strategies geared towards relieving physical symptoms as well as psychological and spiritual stressors.  
 

Physical activity: Establishing what’s possible

Grief and loss are “natural and normal” reactions to advanced cancer, commented Celia Marston, MPallCare, clinical lead for occupational therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

Patients experience feelings of loss around their independence, relationships, physical and cognitive functioning, which in turn impacts their sense of identity, daily routines, and plans for the future.

According to Ms. Marston, the rapid physical decline patients experience in the last 3 months of life is particularly “distressing,” which is why helping patients continue to perform everyday tasks is so critical. 

In clinical practice, this means providing patients palliative rehabilitation focused on maintaining at least a degree of their normal physical activity, which allows them “to adjust and contend with that decline,” Ms. Marston said. It also requires understanding what is important to patients and supporting those requests.

According to Ms. Marston, optimizing patient function can help maintain or slow that rate of physical decline, or sometimes improve it. But even partial activity can be “equally if not more important” than full participation in an activity. Patients “want to be active, they want to test what they can and can’t do” and establish what is possible, she said.
 

Nonpharmacological approaches to symptom control

Addressing strategies to relieve physical symptoms in patients with lung cancer, Alex Molassiotis, RN, PhD, chair professor of nursing at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, explored the role nonpharmacological interventions can play.

Dr. Molassiotis highlighted the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for the Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer, which discuss a range of nonpharmacological strategies to manage respiratory distress, in particular. These include supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as well as breathing techniques, posture, relaxation, meditation, physical and music therapy, and acupressure or reflexology.

In a 2015 randomized controlled feasibility trial, Dr. Molassiotis explored the effectiveness of one such strategy – inspiratory muscle training – in patients with lung cancer and reported improvements in the respiratory symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, and fatigue. A 2020 trial of breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma also showed the intervention improved average dyspnea, control over dyspnea, and anxiety.

However, Dr. Molassiotis cautioned, many other nonpharmacological interventions have only “limited” evidence of effectiveness, and a “stronger evidence base” is required.

Physicians should nevertheless talk to patients about their respiratory symptoms and discuss the available options, taking into account the “major impact” these symptoms have on their quality of life.
 

Integrating psychological strategies

More than 40% of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer experience moderate to severe death anxiety, and about one in four patients with any stage of lung cancer experience significant depression and demoralization, research shows.

During the session, Gary Rodin, MD, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, stressed the “need to intervene” and outlined approaches relevant to different stages of the disease journey.

At the onset, he said, Emotion and Symptom-Focused Engagement (EASE) can help relieve patients’ physical symptoms and traumatic stress. Those with more advanced disease can receive Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, or Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which Dr. Rodin and his colleague Sarah Hales, MD, PhD, developed. And patients at the end of life may benefit from Dignity Therapy, a short form of psychotherapy focused on helping patients find comfort and meaning in their final days.  

Dr. Rodin focused on the role of CALM for those with advanced disease. CALM encompasses three to six sessions of a semi-structured intervention given over several months. The intervention focuses on four domains: 1. Symptom management and communication with healthcare providers; 2. Changes in oneself and relationships with others; 3. Spirituality, or finding a sense of meaning and purpose; and 4. Approaches to sustain hope and face mortality.

Dr. Rodin led a 2018 randomized trial comparing CALM with usual care, which showed the intervention was associated with significant reductions in depression symptoms and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer at three and six months, as well as better patient communication and preparedness for the end of life. Patients reported that the intervention gave them “complete freedom” to communicate about themselves, their condition, and their life.

Evidence-based psychological interventions “should be offered as standard of care” to patients with lung cancer, Dr. Rodin said.
 

Enhancing patient-doctor communication

Having conversations early on about the goals of cancer care is particularly critical, according to Rachelle E. Bernacki, MD, director of quality initiatives, psychosocial oncology, and palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

These conversations between physicians, patients, and family members give patients and loved ones time to make informed decisions, improve patients’ quality of care and satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of using hospice care, Dr. Bernacki explained.

But the reality is that these conversations don’t happen often enough. Less than one third of patients with end-stage diagnoses reported having an end-of-life discussion with their physician, and when the topic does arise, it is typically a few weeks before a patient passes away.

Moreover, these conversations “often fail to address key elements of quality discussions,” Dr. Bernacki commented.

Part of the problem is that many doctors lack the necessary training, face time constraints, or are uncertain about when or how to initiate these conversations.  

Although challenging, patients want to have these discussions. Nine of 10 Americans believe doctors should talk about end-of-life issues with their patients, and 75% of older patients want to know their prognosis so they can prepare for the future, make informed medical decisions, and optimize the time they have left.

Dr. Bernacki highlighted a framework that can help clinicians have productive end-of-life conversations with patients. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, outlines key steps, which include scheduling the conversation, delivering a prognosis, and exploring what matters to the patient. The guide also explores how to communicate effectively with patients, such as asking permission and clarifying questions as well as engaging in active listening.

Above all, Dr. Bernacki stressed that physicians should “listen more than talk” and avoid providing premature assurance when addressing the prognosis. “Many fears will arise that cannot be fixed, but talking about them makes them more bearable for the patient,” she said.
 

Physicians experience grief, too

Patients with advanced lung cancer are not the only ones who face loss and distress. More than half of physicians treating terminally ill patients can experience burnout, according to Sonia Oyola, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine.

In her presentation, Dr. Oyola highlighted strategies physicians can use to manage their grief.

The first step is simply acknowledging feelings of loss. But every physician will have a “unique way of grieving and caring for themselves,” she said.

In general, the literature supports several approaches for managing grief: engaging in death talks and self-attunement or personal awareness training as well as providing end-of-life education in medical schools.

On the personal awareness front, Dr. Oyola highlighted a narrative medicine exercise where physicians write about the patient and reflect on what moved or touched them, what surprised them, and what inspired them.

Pursuing this kind of exercise allows physicians to reflect on their experiences in a way “we often do not have the opportunity to do” and could prevent some of the “devastating consequences in our practices, such as burnout,” Dr. Oyola said.

No funding declared. Dr. Molassiotis has reported a relationship with Helsinn. No other relevant financial relationships declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with life-limiting advanced lung cancer often experience intense grief and loss.

Addressing patients’ physical symptoms – drug side effects, trouble breathing, pain, fatigue – alongside their psychological and spiritual distress – depression, anxiety, fear of death – is critical to restoring their dignity and improving their quality of life, say palliative care experts.

Palliative care aims “to anticipate, prevent, and reduce suffering, promote adaptive coping, and support the best possible quality of life ... regardless of the stage of the disease or the need for other therapies,” commented Andreas Charalambous, RN, PhD, assistant professor (acting) of oncology and palliative care at the Cyprus University of Technology in Limassol, Cyprus.

He was speaking at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, where he chaired a special session entitled, “Grief and Loss in Palliative Care.”  

Research shows that the use of palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and lower costs of care for patients with cancer. But a 2015 Palliative Care Survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network found that although the majority of leading U.S. cancer centers have inpatient palliative care services, most reported insufficient capacity to meet the demand, and that home-based palliative care services and inpatient units were much less common.

Dr. Charalambous emphasized the importance of enhancing the use and quality of palliative care services for patients with advanced lung cancer.

During the session, experts discussed an array of strategies geared towards relieving physical symptoms as well as psychological and spiritual stressors.  
 

Physical activity: Establishing what’s possible

Grief and loss are “natural and normal” reactions to advanced cancer, commented Celia Marston, MPallCare, clinical lead for occupational therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.

Patients experience feelings of loss around their independence, relationships, physical and cognitive functioning, which in turn impacts their sense of identity, daily routines, and plans for the future.

According to Ms. Marston, the rapid physical decline patients experience in the last 3 months of life is particularly “distressing,” which is why helping patients continue to perform everyday tasks is so critical. 

In clinical practice, this means providing patients palliative rehabilitation focused on maintaining at least a degree of their normal physical activity, which allows them “to adjust and contend with that decline,” Ms. Marston said. It also requires understanding what is important to patients and supporting those requests.

According to Ms. Marston, optimizing patient function can help maintain or slow that rate of physical decline, or sometimes improve it. But even partial activity can be “equally if not more important” than full participation in an activity. Patients “want to be active, they want to test what they can and can’t do” and establish what is possible, she said.
 

Nonpharmacological approaches to symptom control

Addressing strategies to relieve physical symptoms in patients with lung cancer, Alex Molassiotis, RN, PhD, chair professor of nursing at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, explored the role nonpharmacological interventions can play.

Dr. Molassiotis highlighted the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for the Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer, which discuss a range of nonpharmacological strategies to manage respiratory distress, in particular. These include supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as well as breathing techniques, posture, relaxation, meditation, physical and music therapy, and acupressure or reflexology.

In a 2015 randomized controlled feasibility trial, Dr. Molassiotis explored the effectiveness of one such strategy – inspiratory muscle training – in patients with lung cancer and reported improvements in the respiratory symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, and fatigue. A 2020 trial of breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma also showed the intervention improved average dyspnea, control over dyspnea, and anxiety.

However, Dr. Molassiotis cautioned, many other nonpharmacological interventions have only “limited” evidence of effectiveness, and a “stronger evidence base” is required.

Physicians should nevertheless talk to patients about their respiratory symptoms and discuss the available options, taking into account the “major impact” these symptoms have on their quality of life.
 

Integrating psychological strategies

More than 40% of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer experience moderate to severe death anxiety, and about one in four patients with any stage of lung cancer experience significant depression and demoralization, research shows.

During the session, Gary Rodin, MD, of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, stressed the “need to intervene” and outlined approaches relevant to different stages of the disease journey.

At the onset, he said, Emotion and Symptom-Focused Engagement (EASE) can help relieve patients’ physical symptoms and traumatic stress. Those with more advanced disease can receive Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy, or Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), which Dr. Rodin and his colleague Sarah Hales, MD, PhD, developed. And patients at the end of life may benefit from Dignity Therapy, a short form of psychotherapy focused on helping patients find comfort and meaning in their final days.  

Dr. Rodin focused on the role of CALM for those with advanced disease. CALM encompasses three to six sessions of a semi-structured intervention given over several months. The intervention focuses on four domains: 1. Symptom management and communication with healthcare providers; 2. Changes in oneself and relationships with others; 3. Spirituality, or finding a sense of meaning and purpose; and 4. Approaches to sustain hope and face mortality.

Dr. Rodin led a 2018 randomized trial comparing CALM with usual care, which showed the intervention was associated with significant reductions in depression symptoms and death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer at three and six months, as well as better patient communication and preparedness for the end of life. Patients reported that the intervention gave them “complete freedom” to communicate about themselves, their condition, and their life.

Evidence-based psychological interventions “should be offered as standard of care” to patients with lung cancer, Dr. Rodin said.
 

Enhancing patient-doctor communication

Having conversations early on about the goals of cancer care is particularly critical, according to Rachelle E. Bernacki, MD, director of quality initiatives, psychosocial oncology, and palliative care at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

These conversations between physicians, patients, and family members give patients and loved ones time to make informed decisions, improve patients’ quality of care and satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of using hospice care, Dr. Bernacki explained.

But the reality is that these conversations don’t happen often enough. Less than one third of patients with end-stage diagnoses reported having an end-of-life discussion with their physician, and when the topic does arise, it is typically a few weeks before a patient passes away.

Moreover, these conversations “often fail to address key elements of quality discussions,” Dr. Bernacki commented.

Part of the problem is that many doctors lack the necessary training, face time constraints, or are uncertain about when or how to initiate these conversations.  

Although challenging, patients want to have these discussions. Nine of 10 Americans believe doctors should talk about end-of-life issues with their patients, and 75% of older patients want to know their prognosis so they can prepare for the future, make informed medical decisions, and optimize the time they have left.

Dr. Bernacki highlighted a framework that can help clinicians have productive end-of-life conversations with patients. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, outlines key steps, which include scheduling the conversation, delivering a prognosis, and exploring what matters to the patient. The guide also explores how to communicate effectively with patients, such as asking permission and clarifying questions as well as engaging in active listening.

Above all, Dr. Bernacki stressed that physicians should “listen more than talk” and avoid providing premature assurance when addressing the prognosis. “Many fears will arise that cannot be fixed, but talking about them makes them more bearable for the patient,” she said.
 

Physicians experience grief, too

Patients with advanced lung cancer are not the only ones who face loss and distress. More than half of physicians treating terminally ill patients can experience burnout, according to Sonia Oyola, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine.

In her presentation, Dr. Oyola highlighted strategies physicians can use to manage their grief.

The first step is simply acknowledging feelings of loss. But every physician will have a “unique way of grieving and caring for themselves,” she said.

In general, the literature supports several approaches for managing grief: engaging in death talks and self-attunement or personal awareness training as well as providing end-of-life education in medical schools.

On the personal awareness front, Dr. Oyola highlighted a narrative medicine exercise where physicians write about the patient and reflect on what moved or touched them, what surprised them, and what inspired them.

Pursuing this kind of exercise allows physicians to reflect on their experiences in a way “we often do not have the opportunity to do” and could prevent some of the “devastating consequences in our practices, such as burnout,” Dr. Oyola said.

No funding declared. Dr. Molassiotis has reported a relationship with Helsinn. No other relevant financial relationships declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ever-widening role of immunotherapy for diseases not usually associated with these revolutionary drugs, such as gynecologic and gastrointestinal cancers, will be a key feature of new clinical data that will be presented at the forthcoming European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2021.

The meeting, which will be held online from September 16 to 21, will also see headlining results from immunotherapy trials in melanoma, lung cancer, and prostate cancer, as well as studies of the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients.

“This is the second year of the virtual ESMO meeting, and this is important because the pandemic and the lockdown have impacted our clinical practice and research,” said conference press spokesman Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the Division of Thoracic Oncology at the European Institute of Oncology, in Milan.

“But when you look at the submitted abstracts and the data that will be presented during ESMO, we can see that clinical research has been ‘resurrected,’“ he told this news organization.

A huge amount of “high-quality” data will be presented, said Dr. Passaro, which is “important,” inasmuch as this is the second year of the pandemic.

He underlined that it is “crucial” to remember that “the pandemic affected not only the lives and quality of life of our patients but also health care systems and the work and quality of life of health care professionals.”

A large amount of the new clinical data to be presented at the meeting will focus on the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in various types of cancer, Dr. Passaro commented. Many of these will be featured in the three Presidential Symposia that will be held on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

These include KEYNOTE-716, a trial comparing the adjuvant use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage II melanoma (abstract LBA3), and an analysis of the IMpower010 trial that will investigate the sites of relapse and subsequent therapy with atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in comparison with best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (abstract LBA9).

Dr. Passaro commented that it is “interesting to note” that the immunotherapy data at ESMO 2021 will not only be in these “classical diseases in which immunotherapy improves survival” but also in different types of cancer, thus “widening the opportunity for our patients” to benefit.

There will be “important results” for immune checkpoint inhibitors for gynecologic cancers, as well as colorectal and gastric cancers, “which is a key topic for this ESMO meeting,” he said.

Other highlights from the Presidential Symposia include the following:

• Results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-826 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (abstract LBA2_PR)
• Results from the CheckMate 649 study, which examined nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab (Yervoy) in comparison with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma (abstract LBA7)
• Results from KRYSTAL-1, a phase 1/2 trial of the investigational agent adagrasib (MRTX849, Mirati Therapeutics) as monotherapy or combined with cetuximab for patients with colorectal cancer harboring a KRASG12C mutation (abstract LBA6)
• Data from FIRSTMAPPP, the first international randomized study of malignant progressive pheochromocytoma and paragangliomas comparing sunitinib (Sutent) with placebo (abstract 567O_PR)
• A combined analysis from the STAMPEDE protocol comparing androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone to abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone, with or without enzalutamide, added to ADT for men with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer (abstract LBA4_PR)
• Results from later-stage disease in men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer enrolled in PEACE-1, a phase 3 trial investigating overall survival with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abstract LBA5_PR)

In addition, Dr. Passaro noted that data will be presented on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients, as well as “interesting results” on the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on patients and their treatment, which is “crucial for all of us” to know. For example, the CAPTURE substudy of the TRACERx Renal trial will examine adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in cancer patients (abstract 1557O).

Also in the same session, data will be presented from the VOICE study on vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or chemo-immunotherapy for solid tumors (abstract LBA8).

At a press conference held ahead of the meeting, Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, from the Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston, who is the scientific co-chair of ESMO 2021, highlighted precision medicine as a key theme of the meeting.

He said that this is something the oncology community is “actively implementing worldwide to continue to make progress in cancer therapies and as such improve the outcomes of our patients.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ever-widening role of immunotherapy for diseases not usually associated with these revolutionary drugs, such as gynecologic and gastrointestinal cancers, will be a key feature of new clinical data that will be presented at the forthcoming European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2021.

The meeting, which will be held online from September 16 to 21, will also see headlining results from immunotherapy trials in melanoma, lung cancer, and prostate cancer, as well as studies of the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients.

“This is the second year of the virtual ESMO meeting, and this is important because the pandemic and the lockdown have impacted our clinical practice and research,” said conference press spokesman Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the Division of Thoracic Oncology at the European Institute of Oncology, in Milan.

“But when you look at the submitted abstracts and the data that will be presented during ESMO, we can see that clinical research has been ‘resurrected,’“ he told this news organization.

A huge amount of “high-quality” data will be presented, said Dr. Passaro, which is “important,” inasmuch as this is the second year of the pandemic.

He underlined that it is “crucial” to remember that “the pandemic affected not only the lives and quality of life of our patients but also health care systems and the work and quality of life of health care professionals.”

A large amount of the new clinical data to be presented at the meeting will focus on the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in various types of cancer, Dr. Passaro commented. Many of these will be featured in the three Presidential Symposia that will be held on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

These include KEYNOTE-716, a trial comparing the adjuvant use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage II melanoma (abstract LBA3), and an analysis of the IMpower010 trial that will investigate the sites of relapse and subsequent therapy with atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in comparison with best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (abstract LBA9).

Dr. Passaro commented that it is “interesting to note” that the immunotherapy data at ESMO 2021 will not only be in these “classical diseases in which immunotherapy improves survival” but also in different types of cancer, thus “widening the opportunity for our patients” to benefit.

There will be “important results” for immune checkpoint inhibitors for gynecologic cancers, as well as colorectal and gastric cancers, “which is a key topic for this ESMO meeting,” he said.

Other highlights from the Presidential Symposia include the following:

• Results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-826 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (abstract LBA2_PR)
• Results from the CheckMate 649 study, which examined nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab (Yervoy) in comparison with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma (abstract LBA7)
• Results from KRYSTAL-1, a phase 1/2 trial of the investigational agent adagrasib (MRTX849, Mirati Therapeutics) as monotherapy or combined with cetuximab for patients with colorectal cancer harboring a KRASG12C mutation (abstract LBA6)
• Data from FIRSTMAPPP, the first international randomized study of malignant progressive pheochromocytoma and paragangliomas comparing sunitinib (Sutent) with placebo (abstract 567O_PR)
• A combined analysis from the STAMPEDE protocol comparing androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone to abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone, with or without enzalutamide, added to ADT for men with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer (abstract LBA4_PR)
• Results from later-stage disease in men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer enrolled in PEACE-1, a phase 3 trial investigating overall survival with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abstract LBA5_PR)

In addition, Dr. Passaro noted that data will be presented on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients, as well as “interesting results” on the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on patients and their treatment, which is “crucial for all of us” to know. For example, the CAPTURE substudy of the TRACERx Renal trial will examine adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in cancer patients (abstract 1557O).

Also in the same session, data will be presented from the VOICE study on vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or chemo-immunotherapy for solid tumors (abstract LBA8).

At a press conference held ahead of the meeting, Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, from the Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston, who is the scientific co-chair of ESMO 2021, highlighted precision medicine as a key theme of the meeting.

He said that this is something the oncology community is “actively implementing worldwide to continue to make progress in cancer therapies and as such improve the outcomes of our patients.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ever-widening role of immunotherapy for diseases not usually associated with these revolutionary drugs, such as gynecologic and gastrointestinal cancers, will be a key feature of new clinical data that will be presented at the forthcoming European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2021.

The meeting, which will be held online from September 16 to 21, will also see headlining results from immunotherapy trials in melanoma, lung cancer, and prostate cancer, as well as studies of the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients.

“This is the second year of the virtual ESMO meeting, and this is important because the pandemic and the lockdown have impacted our clinical practice and research,” said conference press spokesman Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, from the Division of Thoracic Oncology at the European Institute of Oncology, in Milan.

“But when you look at the submitted abstracts and the data that will be presented during ESMO, we can see that clinical research has been ‘resurrected,’“ he told this news organization.

A huge amount of “high-quality” data will be presented, said Dr. Passaro, which is “important,” inasmuch as this is the second year of the pandemic.

He underlined that it is “crucial” to remember that “the pandemic affected not only the lives and quality of life of our patients but also health care systems and the work and quality of life of health care professionals.”

A large amount of the new clinical data to be presented at the meeting will focus on the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in various types of cancer, Dr. Passaro commented. Many of these will be featured in the three Presidential Symposia that will be held on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

These include KEYNOTE-716, a trial comparing the adjuvant use of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) to placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage II melanoma (abstract LBA3), and an analysis of the IMpower010 trial that will investigate the sites of relapse and subsequent therapy with atezolizumab (Tecentriq) in comparison with best supportive care after adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (abstract LBA9).

Dr. Passaro commented that it is “interesting to note” that the immunotherapy data at ESMO 2021 will not only be in these “classical diseases in which immunotherapy improves survival” but also in different types of cancer, thus “widening the opportunity for our patients” to benefit.

There will be “important results” for immune checkpoint inhibitors for gynecologic cancers, as well as colorectal and gastric cancers, “which is a key topic for this ESMO meeting,” he said.

Other highlights from the Presidential Symposia include the following:

• Results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-826 study of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (abstract LBA2_PR)
• Results from the CheckMate 649 study, which examined nivolumab (Opdivo) plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab (Yervoy) in comparison with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma (abstract LBA7)
• Results from KRYSTAL-1, a phase 1/2 trial of the investigational agent adagrasib (MRTX849, Mirati Therapeutics) as monotherapy or combined with cetuximab for patients with colorectal cancer harboring a KRASG12C mutation (abstract LBA6)
• Data from FIRSTMAPPP, the first international randomized study of malignant progressive pheochromocytoma and paragangliomas comparing sunitinib (Sutent) with placebo (abstract 567O_PR)
• A combined analysis from the STAMPEDE protocol comparing androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone to abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone, with or without enzalutamide, added to ADT for men with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer (abstract LBA4_PR)
• Results from later-stage disease in men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer enrolled in PEACE-1, a phase 3 trial investigating overall survival with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abstract LBA5_PR)

In addition, Dr. Passaro noted that data will be presented on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients, as well as “interesting results” on the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on patients and their treatment, which is “crucial for all of us” to know. For example, the CAPTURE substudy of the TRACERx Renal trial will examine adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in cancer patients (abstract 1557O).

Also in the same session, data will be presented from the VOICE study on vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or chemo-immunotherapy for solid tumors (abstract LBA8).

At a press conference held ahead of the meeting, Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, from the Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston, who is the scientific co-chair of ESMO 2021, highlighted precision medicine as a key theme of the meeting.

He said that this is something the oncology community is “actively implementing worldwide to continue to make progress in cancer therapies and as such improve the outcomes of our patients.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in comparison with chemotherapy alone for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the POSEIDON trial.

The study involved over 1,000 patients with stage IV NSCLC. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either two ICIs (tremelimumab and durvalumab [Imfinzi]) plus chemotherapy, or one immunotherapy (durvalumab) plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS by 26% but did not significantly improve OS, the researchers reported. However, adding both tremelimumab and durvalumab significantly increased both PFS (by 28%) and OS (by 23%). Median OS was 14.0 months versus 11.7 months for chemotherapy.

The results were presented on Sept. 9 at a presidential symposium of the World Conference on Lung Cancer 2021.

The two immunotherapies act at different immune checkpoints – tremelimumab acts at CTLA-4, and durvalumab acts at programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1). Both drugs are from AstraZeneca, which sponsored the POSEIDON trial.

With no new safety signals identified, the triple therapy combination “represents a potential new frontline treatment option for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer,” said lead researcher Melissa L. Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

Reacting to the new results in a discussion of the paper, Julie R. Brahmer, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, with so many first-line treatment choices now available for advanced NSCLC, she feels like “a kid in the candy store.”

POSEIDON may give her “another choice,” but she pointed out that there are some aspects of the study to consider.

The study required patients to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy along with immunotherapy, “which certainly is standard in many of our practices.”

However, only two cycles of chemotherapy were given in the CheckMate 9LA trial, in which nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were added to chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV NSCLC. This combination of immunotherapies, which block CTLA-4 and PD-1, is similar to the combination that was studied in the current trial, and it is already approved for use in some patients with lung cancer.

“Also key to point out,” said Dr. Brahmer, is that, in the POSEIDON trial, “there was a trend toward more poor prognostic factors in the chemotherapy arm, where these patients had more liver or central nervous system metastases.”

Despite these differences, the survival outcomes were similar in the two trials, and in both trials, the tails of the curves indicate that “we need to see long-term data” to determine whether the benefit is ongoing.
 

Which patients for which combos?

Considering all the data from key trials in advanced NSCLC, Dr. Brahmer said that she believes that, for patients with high PD-L1 expression, treatment with a single immunotherapy directed against PD-1 or PD-L1 “is appropriate” and that she didn’t see that adding a CTLA-4 inhibitor to the PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy would give any advantage.

“But for PD-L1–negative disease, I do think CTLA-4 antibodies seem to provide a benefit, specifically seen in the CheckMate studies,” particularly for patients with squamous disease, although she noted that in POSEIDON, histology and PD-L1 status have not been analyzed.

Dr. Brahmer concluded that, although the triple therapy improved survival outcomes in the current study, several key questions remain.

These include determining what CTLA-4 inhibition adds to PD-L1 blockade and asking whether the “slightly increased toxicity” is “worth the slightly increased long-term duration of response” and improved survival outcomes.

Furthermore, it needs to be determined “which populations truly need” the combined approach; “to get to this, we need to find the biomarker for CTLA-4 benefit,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She also noted “a practical question: Is there room in the clinic for another CTLA-4 antibody in addition to the nivolumab/ipilimumab combinations?”

This last point was appreciated on social media. Jill Feldman, a lung cancer patient and advocate, described it on Twitter as a “great question.”

She said that, for her, “options equal hope,” but that it is “critical” to give the “best treatment first. ... So as a patient, I would ask: How do I know/you know which treatment would be best for me?”

With “so many options in the first-line setting,” subsets of patients who may benefit from quadruplet therapy versus monotherapy need to be defined, commented Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. He added that “PD-L1 may be one biomarker, but we need more.”
 

More details of the POSEIDON trial

In the POSEIDON trial, investigators had the choice of different chemotherapy regimens: platinum/gemcitabine for patients with squamous disease, platinum/pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous disease, and nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with disease of either histology, Dr. Johnson reported.

It is noteworthy that the majority of patients were from Eastern Europe and Asia, “and the proportion of squamous patients enrolled was higher than is typically seen in mixed histology lung cancer studies,” she added.

The patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression at a cutoff of 50%, disease stage, and tumor histology.

Overall, 1,013 patients were enrolled. The three treatment arms were relatively well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics.

Dr. Johnson noted that there were “a few minor imbalances” in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, with “fewer females, fewer Asians, and fewer never-smokers relative to the other two arms.”

The primary endpoint analysis after a median follow-up of 10.3 months demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with durvalumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone, at a median of 5.5 months versus 4.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .00093).

Although OS improved numerically with the addition of durvalumab to chemotherapy, it did not reach significance (13.3 months vs. 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone; HR, 0.86; P = .07581).

The positive PFS benefit with durvalumab plus chemotherapy triggered a secondary endpoint analysis, which showed that adding tremelimumab to durvalumab plus chemotherapy improved both survival outcomes.

Median PFS with the triple combination therapy was 6.2 months, significantly longer than the 4.8 months seen with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.72; P = .00031).

At 12 months, 26.6% of patients who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy had not experienced disease progression, compared with 13.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

OS was also significantly improved, at 14.0 months among patients in the triple therapy arm versus 11.7 in the chemotherapy-alone arm (HR, 0.77; P = .00304).

The results also showed that at 24 months, 32.9% of triple therapy patients were still alive versus 22.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Analysis indicated that “most subgroups favored the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy.” There was a “trend toward improved survival for all patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Johnson said.

This was seen “in particular for the nonsquamous patients” and for those with tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, he added.

It is notable that for a large proportion of combination-therapy patients, response had continued at 12 months. This was the case for 38.9% of those who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy and for 49.7% of those given triple therapy versus 21.4% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

As was seen across the whole cohort, among patients with nonsquamous disease, PFS and OS improved with the addition of immunotherapy. Of those patients with nonsquamous disease, 95.5% received pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy.

However, among patients with squamous tumors, of whom 88.3% received gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy, PFS and OS were “poor ... across all treatment arms,” Dr. Johnson reported, “with little separation of the curves.”

She highlighted the fact that the proportion of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events, whether of any cause or treatment related, was only slightly higher in the two immunotherapy arms, indicating that “most events were driven by the chemotherapy.”

The rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events leading to death were also similar across the three treatment arms, albeit they were slightly higher with the addition of immunotherapy.

Dr. Johnson also noted that, although there were more immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, compared with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, the “majority were grade 1/2 and were manageable.”

The most common immune-mediated events in the two immunotherapy arms were hypothyroid and hepatic events, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and rash.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnson reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brahmer reported relationships with Amgen, AstratZeneca, BMA, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Revolution Medicine, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in comparison with chemotherapy alone for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the POSEIDON trial.

The study involved over 1,000 patients with stage IV NSCLC. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either two ICIs (tremelimumab and durvalumab [Imfinzi]) plus chemotherapy, or one immunotherapy (durvalumab) plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS by 26% but did not significantly improve OS, the researchers reported. However, adding both tremelimumab and durvalumab significantly increased both PFS (by 28%) and OS (by 23%). Median OS was 14.0 months versus 11.7 months for chemotherapy.

The results were presented on Sept. 9 at a presidential symposium of the World Conference on Lung Cancer 2021.

The two immunotherapies act at different immune checkpoints – tremelimumab acts at CTLA-4, and durvalumab acts at programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1). Both drugs are from AstraZeneca, which sponsored the POSEIDON trial.

With no new safety signals identified, the triple therapy combination “represents a potential new frontline treatment option for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer,” said lead researcher Melissa L. Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

Reacting to the new results in a discussion of the paper, Julie R. Brahmer, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, with so many first-line treatment choices now available for advanced NSCLC, she feels like “a kid in the candy store.”

POSEIDON may give her “another choice,” but she pointed out that there are some aspects of the study to consider.

The study required patients to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy along with immunotherapy, “which certainly is standard in many of our practices.”

However, only two cycles of chemotherapy were given in the CheckMate 9LA trial, in which nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were added to chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV NSCLC. This combination of immunotherapies, which block CTLA-4 and PD-1, is similar to the combination that was studied in the current trial, and it is already approved for use in some patients with lung cancer.

“Also key to point out,” said Dr. Brahmer, is that, in the POSEIDON trial, “there was a trend toward more poor prognostic factors in the chemotherapy arm, where these patients had more liver or central nervous system metastases.”

Despite these differences, the survival outcomes were similar in the two trials, and in both trials, the tails of the curves indicate that “we need to see long-term data” to determine whether the benefit is ongoing.
 

Which patients for which combos?

Considering all the data from key trials in advanced NSCLC, Dr. Brahmer said that she believes that, for patients with high PD-L1 expression, treatment with a single immunotherapy directed against PD-1 or PD-L1 “is appropriate” and that she didn’t see that adding a CTLA-4 inhibitor to the PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy would give any advantage.

“But for PD-L1–negative disease, I do think CTLA-4 antibodies seem to provide a benefit, specifically seen in the CheckMate studies,” particularly for patients with squamous disease, although she noted that in POSEIDON, histology and PD-L1 status have not been analyzed.

Dr. Brahmer concluded that, although the triple therapy improved survival outcomes in the current study, several key questions remain.

These include determining what CTLA-4 inhibition adds to PD-L1 blockade and asking whether the “slightly increased toxicity” is “worth the slightly increased long-term duration of response” and improved survival outcomes.

Furthermore, it needs to be determined “which populations truly need” the combined approach; “to get to this, we need to find the biomarker for CTLA-4 benefit,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She also noted “a practical question: Is there room in the clinic for another CTLA-4 antibody in addition to the nivolumab/ipilimumab combinations?”

This last point was appreciated on social media. Jill Feldman, a lung cancer patient and advocate, described it on Twitter as a “great question.”

She said that, for her, “options equal hope,” but that it is “critical” to give the “best treatment first. ... So as a patient, I would ask: How do I know/you know which treatment would be best for me?”

With “so many options in the first-line setting,” subsets of patients who may benefit from quadruplet therapy versus monotherapy need to be defined, commented Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. He added that “PD-L1 may be one biomarker, but we need more.”
 

More details of the POSEIDON trial

In the POSEIDON trial, investigators had the choice of different chemotherapy regimens: platinum/gemcitabine for patients with squamous disease, platinum/pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous disease, and nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with disease of either histology, Dr. Johnson reported.

It is noteworthy that the majority of patients were from Eastern Europe and Asia, “and the proportion of squamous patients enrolled was higher than is typically seen in mixed histology lung cancer studies,” she added.

The patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression at a cutoff of 50%, disease stage, and tumor histology.

Overall, 1,013 patients were enrolled. The three treatment arms were relatively well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics.

Dr. Johnson noted that there were “a few minor imbalances” in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, with “fewer females, fewer Asians, and fewer never-smokers relative to the other two arms.”

The primary endpoint analysis after a median follow-up of 10.3 months demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with durvalumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone, at a median of 5.5 months versus 4.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .00093).

Although OS improved numerically with the addition of durvalumab to chemotherapy, it did not reach significance (13.3 months vs. 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone; HR, 0.86; P = .07581).

The positive PFS benefit with durvalumab plus chemotherapy triggered a secondary endpoint analysis, which showed that adding tremelimumab to durvalumab plus chemotherapy improved both survival outcomes.

Median PFS with the triple combination therapy was 6.2 months, significantly longer than the 4.8 months seen with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.72; P = .00031).

At 12 months, 26.6% of patients who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy had not experienced disease progression, compared with 13.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

OS was also significantly improved, at 14.0 months among patients in the triple therapy arm versus 11.7 in the chemotherapy-alone arm (HR, 0.77; P = .00304).

The results also showed that at 24 months, 32.9% of triple therapy patients were still alive versus 22.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Analysis indicated that “most subgroups favored the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy.” There was a “trend toward improved survival for all patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Johnson said.

This was seen “in particular for the nonsquamous patients” and for those with tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, he added.

It is notable that for a large proportion of combination-therapy patients, response had continued at 12 months. This was the case for 38.9% of those who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy and for 49.7% of those given triple therapy versus 21.4% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

As was seen across the whole cohort, among patients with nonsquamous disease, PFS and OS improved with the addition of immunotherapy. Of those patients with nonsquamous disease, 95.5% received pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy.

However, among patients with squamous tumors, of whom 88.3% received gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy, PFS and OS were “poor ... across all treatment arms,” Dr. Johnson reported, “with little separation of the curves.”

She highlighted the fact that the proportion of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events, whether of any cause or treatment related, was only slightly higher in the two immunotherapy arms, indicating that “most events were driven by the chemotherapy.”

The rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events leading to death were also similar across the three treatment arms, albeit they were slightly higher with the addition of immunotherapy.

Dr. Johnson also noted that, although there were more immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, compared with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, the “majority were grade 1/2 and were manageable.”

The most common immune-mediated events in the two immunotherapy arms were hypothyroid and hepatic events, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and rash.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnson reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brahmer reported relationships with Amgen, AstratZeneca, BMA, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Revolution Medicine, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to platinum-based chemotherapy significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in comparison with chemotherapy alone for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the POSEIDON trial.

The study involved over 1,000 patients with stage IV NSCLC. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either two ICIs (tremelimumab and durvalumab [Imfinzi]) plus chemotherapy, or one immunotherapy (durvalumab) plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone.

Adding durvalumab to chemotherapy significantly improved PFS by 26% but did not significantly improve OS, the researchers reported. However, adding both tremelimumab and durvalumab significantly increased both PFS (by 28%) and OS (by 23%). Median OS was 14.0 months versus 11.7 months for chemotherapy.

The results were presented on Sept. 9 at a presidential symposium of the World Conference on Lung Cancer 2021.

The two immunotherapies act at different immune checkpoints – tremelimumab acts at CTLA-4, and durvalumab acts at programmed death–1/PD–ligand 1 (PD-L1). Both drugs are from AstraZeneca, which sponsored the POSEIDON trial.

With no new safety signals identified, the triple therapy combination “represents a potential new frontline treatment option for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer,” said lead researcher Melissa L. Johnson, MD, from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn.

Reacting to the new results in a discussion of the paper, Julie R. Brahmer, MD, from Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said that, with so many first-line treatment choices now available for advanced NSCLC, she feels like “a kid in the candy store.”

POSEIDON may give her “another choice,” but she pointed out that there are some aspects of the study to consider.

The study required patients to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy along with immunotherapy, “which certainly is standard in many of our practices.”

However, only two cycles of chemotherapy were given in the CheckMate 9LA trial, in which nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy) were added to chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IV NSCLC. This combination of immunotherapies, which block CTLA-4 and PD-1, is similar to the combination that was studied in the current trial, and it is already approved for use in some patients with lung cancer.

“Also key to point out,” said Dr. Brahmer, is that, in the POSEIDON trial, “there was a trend toward more poor prognostic factors in the chemotherapy arm, where these patients had more liver or central nervous system metastases.”

Despite these differences, the survival outcomes were similar in the two trials, and in both trials, the tails of the curves indicate that “we need to see long-term data” to determine whether the benefit is ongoing.
 

Which patients for which combos?

Considering all the data from key trials in advanced NSCLC, Dr. Brahmer said that she believes that, for patients with high PD-L1 expression, treatment with a single immunotherapy directed against PD-1 or PD-L1 “is appropriate” and that she didn’t see that adding a CTLA-4 inhibitor to the PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy would give any advantage.

“But for PD-L1–negative disease, I do think CTLA-4 antibodies seem to provide a benefit, specifically seen in the CheckMate studies,” particularly for patients with squamous disease, although she noted that in POSEIDON, histology and PD-L1 status have not been analyzed.

Dr. Brahmer concluded that, although the triple therapy improved survival outcomes in the current study, several key questions remain.

These include determining what CTLA-4 inhibition adds to PD-L1 blockade and asking whether the “slightly increased toxicity” is “worth the slightly increased long-term duration of response” and improved survival outcomes.

Furthermore, it needs to be determined “which populations truly need” the combined approach; “to get to this, we need to find the biomarker for CTLA-4 benefit,” Dr. Brahmer said.

She also noted “a practical question: Is there room in the clinic for another CTLA-4 antibody in addition to the nivolumab/ipilimumab combinations?”

This last point was appreciated on social media. Jill Feldman, a lung cancer patient and advocate, described it on Twitter as a “great question.”

She said that, for her, “options equal hope,” but that it is “critical” to give the “best treatment first. ... So as a patient, I would ask: How do I know/you know which treatment would be best for me?”

With “so many options in the first-line setting,” subsets of patients who may benefit from quadruplet therapy versus monotherapy need to be defined, commented Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, Leslye M. Heisler Associate Professor for Lung Cancer Excellence, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia. He added that “PD-L1 may be one biomarker, but we need more.”
 

More details of the POSEIDON trial

In the POSEIDON trial, investigators had the choice of different chemotherapy regimens: platinum/gemcitabine for patients with squamous disease, platinum/pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous disease, and nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin for patients with disease of either histology, Dr. Johnson reported.

It is noteworthy that the majority of patients were from Eastern Europe and Asia, “and the proportion of squamous patients enrolled was higher than is typically seen in mixed histology lung cancer studies,” she added.

The patients were stratified by PD-L1 expression at a cutoff of 50%, disease stage, and tumor histology.

Overall, 1,013 patients were enrolled. The three treatment arms were relatively well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics.

Dr. Johnson noted that there were “a few minor imbalances” in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab arm, with “fewer females, fewer Asians, and fewer never-smokers relative to the other two arms.”

The primary endpoint analysis after a median follow-up of 10.3 months demonstrated that PFS was significantly improved with durvalumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone, at a median of 5.5 months versus 4.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .00093).

Although OS improved numerically with the addition of durvalumab to chemotherapy, it did not reach significance (13.3 months vs. 11.7 months with chemotherapy alone; HR, 0.86; P = .07581).

The positive PFS benefit with durvalumab plus chemotherapy triggered a secondary endpoint analysis, which showed that adding tremelimumab to durvalumab plus chemotherapy improved both survival outcomes.

Median PFS with the triple combination therapy was 6.2 months, significantly longer than the 4.8 months seen with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.72; P = .00031).

At 12 months, 26.6% of patients who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy had not experienced disease progression, compared with 13.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

OS was also significantly improved, at 14.0 months among patients in the triple therapy arm versus 11.7 in the chemotherapy-alone arm (HR, 0.77; P = .00304).

The results also showed that at 24 months, 32.9% of triple therapy patients were still alive versus 22.1% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Analysis indicated that “most subgroups favored the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy.” There was a “trend toward improved survival for all patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy,” Dr. Johnson said.

This was seen “in particular for the nonsquamous patients” and for those with tumor PD-L1 expression of less than 1%, he added.

It is notable that for a large proportion of combination-therapy patients, response had continued at 12 months. This was the case for 38.9% of those who underwent treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy and for 49.7% of those given triple therapy versus 21.4% in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

As was seen across the whole cohort, among patients with nonsquamous disease, PFS and OS improved with the addition of immunotherapy. Of those patients with nonsquamous disease, 95.5% received pemetrexed plus platinum chemotherapy.

However, among patients with squamous tumors, of whom 88.3% received gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy, PFS and OS were “poor ... across all treatment arms,” Dr. Johnson reported, “with little separation of the curves.”

She highlighted the fact that the proportion of patients who experienced grade 3/4 adverse events, whether of any cause or treatment related, was only slightly higher in the two immunotherapy arms, indicating that “most events were driven by the chemotherapy.”

The rates of treatment discontinuation and adverse events leading to death were also similar across the three treatment arms, albeit they were slightly higher with the addition of immunotherapy.

Dr. Johnson also noted that, although there were more immune-mediated adverse events with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus chemotherapy, compared with durvalumab plus chemotherapy, the “majority were grade 1/2 and were manageable.”

The most common immune-mediated events in the two immunotherapy arms were hypothyroid and hepatic events, pneumonitis, dermatitis, and rash.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnson reported numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brahmer reported relationships with Amgen, AstratZeneca, BMA, Genentech/Roche, Eli Lilly, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Revolution Medicine, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial of atezolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases shows promise for improving progression-free survival, according to a study presented at the 2021 World Congress on Lung Cancer.

The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).

With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).

At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.

Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.

“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.

Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.

Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.

“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.

The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.

The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.

“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.

Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”

Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.

Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial of atezolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases shows promise for improving progression-free survival, according to a study presented at the 2021 World Congress on Lung Cancer.

The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).

With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).

At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.

Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.

“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.

Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.

Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.

“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.

The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.

The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.

“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.

Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”

Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.

Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial of atezolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases shows promise for improving progression-free survival, according to a study presented at the 2021 World Congress on Lung Cancer.

The trial is noteworthy because to date, few patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (or those treated with corticosteroids), were ever included in clinical trials that examine the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy and immunotherapy together as first-line treatment, said Ernest Nadal, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona Catalan Institute of Oncology at L’Hospitalet de Llobregat. He and his colleagues presented their findings at the meeting, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC).

With only 40 patients, the clinical trial was small, but the safety profile of atezolizumab combined with carboplatin and pemetrexed was favorable in patients with untreated brain metastases and those receiving corticosteroids (dexamethasone of 4 mg once a day or less).

At a median follow-up of 17.3 months, median intracranial and systemic progression-free survival – the co-primary study endpoints, along with safety – were 6.9 months and 8.9 months in 40 patients treated with the immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy combination, and the 18-month progression-free survival rates were 10.4% and 24.9%, respectively, Dr. Nadal said.

Secondary study endpoints included response rate and overall survival rate. The overall response rate was 40% at 12 weeks; 19 patients (47.5%) had stable disease in the central nervous system, and 19 (47.5%) had a systemic response. The median overall survival was 13.6 months, and 2-year overall survival was 32%.

“The 12-week progression-free survival rate was 60%, [which was] above the expected rate of 50%, and the grade 2-4 toxicity rate was 27.5%, [which was] below the threshold of 35%,” Dr. Nadal said.

Four patients achieved complete response in the brain, and four patients had discordance between systemic and central nervous system response: two with progressive disease in the body and stable disease in the brain, and two with progressive disease in the brain and stable disease in the body.

Study subjects were chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC without estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic alterations and with untreated brain metastases. They were enrolled from 11 clinical sites and treated with carboplatin (5 AUCs) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) plus atezolizumab (1,200 mg) every 3 weeks for four to six cycles, followed by maintenance with pemetrexed plus atezolizumab for 2 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients were anemia (eight patients), back pain (four patients), thrombocytopenia (two patients) and dyspnea, pneumonitis, and elevated alanine transaminase (one patient each). Grade 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in three patients and included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hallucinations.

“Brain metastases are the most frequent cancer-related neurological complication and have a major impact on the neurocognitive function, quality of life, and the patient’s prognosis,” Dr. Nadal said, adding that local therapy could add toxicity and delay systemic treatment.

The progression-free survival findings in this study are similar to those reported in the KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial in patients with brain metastases, which showed improved outcomes with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, Dr. Nadal said.

The safety profile was also favorable – even in the 17 patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline.

“This combination can result in clinical benefit in terms of overall survival in this population “Correlative studies with brain imaging and blood samples are currently ongoing,” he said.

Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, an oncologist with Penn Medicine who specializes in lung cancer, said the findings help address how patients with untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases should be treated.

Taken together with findings from other prospective and retrospective trials in this population, the outcomes demonstrate that “in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, upfront immunochemotherapy is associated with intracranial response rates,” she said. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases can be safely treated with chemoimmunotherapy, but “proper patient selection is going to be key.”

Unanswered questions from this study include the size of brain metastases at trial enrollment, whether programmed death-ligand 1 status matters, and whether there is an optimal dose of steroids that should be mandated for inclusion into trials, Dr. Aggarwal added, noting that several trials enrolling patients with lung cancer are seeking to answer these questions.

Dr. Nadal reported receiving research support, speaker bureau fees, and/or honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Aggarwal reported serving on an advisory board for multiple pharmaceutical companies. She also reported clinical trial funding to her institution from multiple companies.

sworcester@mdedge.com