Lung Cancer

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies that previously reported significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvements and more recently, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, overall survival (OS) benefit. I reflect on the significance of these new reports in the wake of previously reported data and guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Osimertinib in advanced NSCLC

In the double-blind, phase 3 FLAURA trial, 556 patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm), advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received osimertinib or a standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as initial treatment. PFS, the primary endpoint, was clinically and statistically better for osimertinib (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; P less than .001), overall and in all major subgroups. There were fewer grade 3-4 adverse events and fewer permanent treatment discontinuations with osimertinib.

At the time of initial publication, OS data were immature, but because of the substantial survival improvements previously noted, osimertinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-line treatment of EGFRm stage IV NSCLC patients in April 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:113-25).

More recently, at ESMO 2019, Suresh Ramalingam, MD, of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues reported the OS results. Crossover to osimertinib was allowed for patients on the standard TKI arm when they had progressive disease and a T790M mutation. Osimertinib produced a median OS of 38.6 months, compared with 31.8 months for standard TKI (HR, 0.799; P = .0462), a 24-month OS rate of 74% vs. 59% (with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals), and a 36-month OS rate of 54% vs. 44%. These benefits were interpreted to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

The 31.8-month median OS for standard TKI was competitive with the highest reported OS for standard therapy, perhaps because crossover to osimertinib was permitted.

What this means in clinical practice

The report by Dr. Ramalingam and colleagues – and the next abstract I will review – remind me of the famous “You had me at Hello” line from “Jerry Maguire.”

For patient education – and perhaps for some national regulatory agencies – it is good that we now have definition of what the average OS is with osimertinib, compared with standard TKI followed by osimertinib. However, very few oncologists in the United States likely use the latter strategy anymore. It was clear when the impressive PFS and toxicity information appeared in 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine that osimertinib is the best tolerated, most durably effective front-line treatment for EGFRm mNSCLC, regardless of disease extent, sex, nationality, type of EGFRm (L858R amino acid substitution in exon 21 or exon 19 deletion), or presence/absence of central nervous system metastases.

In NCCN guidelines, osimertinib was listed as the preferred TKI, prior to the OS report at ESMO 2019. The challenges going forward will be to identify high-risk patient subsets who might benefit from drug combinations or novel new agents.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant

In the MONARCH 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (abema-F) significantly improved PFS, in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant (placebo-F; 16.9 months vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.563) in 669 premenopausal (with concurrent ovarian function suppression) and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who had disease progression on one to two lines of prior hormonal therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2017;35[25]:2875-84).

At ESMO 2019, George W. Sledge Jr., MD, of Stanford (Calif.) Medical Center, and colleagues reported the OS results, a secondary endpoint for the trial (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782). At the prespecified interim analysis point, median OS for abema-F was 46.7 months vs. 37.3 months for placebo-F (HR, 0.757; 95% CI 0.505-0.945; P = .0137). Patients with greatest benefit from abema-F were exactly the patients who needed the most help – those with visceral metastases (HR 0.675) and with primary resistance to prior hormonal therapy (HR, 0.686).

At 3 years, at least three times as many patients remained progression free with abema-F, compared with placebo-F, and the abema-F patients experienced prolongation in time to eventual chemotherapy (50.2 months vs. 22.1 months; HR, 0.625).

What this means in clinical practice

Many times I find myself sitting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and thinking, “Only a medical oncologist like me would find this result exciting.” Prior to ESMO 2019, MONARCH 2 (and a similar study presented at ESMO 2019, MONALEESA-3, which employed an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, with similar OS results) added to the body of literature that caused NCCN guidelines to list all of the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative mBC. NCCN guidelines have the caveat that, among patients with disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting, there are no data to support continuing the CDK 4/6 inhibitor or switching to an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor thereafter.

For that shrinking group of patients and doctors who choose to avoid CDK 4/6 inhibitors for first-line treatment, as we describe risks and benefits of using a CDK 4/6 inhibitor for second- or third-line therapy, we have high-quality OS information from ESMO 2019 to answer the “Is it worth it?” question.

Are the results of MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3 practice changing? No. We were already convinced. Should we be excited that we have this new information for discussions with our patients? Absolutely.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies that previously reported significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvements and more recently, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, overall survival (OS) benefit. I reflect on the significance of these new reports in the wake of previously reported data and guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Osimertinib in advanced NSCLC

In the double-blind, phase 3 FLAURA trial, 556 patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm), advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received osimertinib or a standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as initial treatment. PFS, the primary endpoint, was clinically and statistically better for osimertinib (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; P less than .001), overall and in all major subgroups. There were fewer grade 3-4 adverse events and fewer permanent treatment discontinuations with osimertinib.

At the time of initial publication, OS data were immature, but because of the substantial survival improvements previously noted, osimertinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-line treatment of EGFRm stage IV NSCLC patients in April 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:113-25).

More recently, at ESMO 2019, Suresh Ramalingam, MD, of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues reported the OS results. Crossover to osimertinib was allowed for patients on the standard TKI arm when they had progressive disease and a T790M mutation. Osimertinib produced a median OS of 38.6 months, compared with 31.8 months for standard TKI (HR, 0.799; P = .0462), a 24-month OS rate of 74% vs. 59% (with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals), and a 36-month OS rate of 54% vs. 44%. These benefits were interpreted to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

The 31.8-month median OS for standard TKI was competitive with the highest reported OS for standard therapy, perhaps because crossover to osimertinib was permitted.

What this means in clinical practice

The report by Dr. Ramalingam and colleagues – and the next abstract I will review – remind me of the famous “You had me at Hello” line from “Jerry Maguire.”

For patient education – and perhaps for some national regulatory agencies – it is good that we now have definition of what the average OS is with osimertinib, compared with standard TKI followed by osimertinib. However, very few oncologists in the United States likely use the latter strategy anymore. It was clear when the impressive PFS and toxicity information appeared in 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine that osimertinib is the best tolerated, most durably effective front-line treatment for EGFRm mNSCLC, regardless of disease extent, sex, nationality, type of EGFRm (L858R amino acid substitution in exon 21 or exon 19 deletion), or presence/absence of central nervous system metastases.

In NCCN guidelines, osimertinib was listed as the preferred TKI, prior to the OS report at ESMO 2019. The challenges going forward will be to identify high-risk patient subsets who might benefit from drug combinations or novel new agents.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant

In the MONARCH 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (abema-F) significantly improved PFS, in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant (placebo-F; 16.9 months vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.563) in 669 premenopausal (with concurrent ovarian function suppression) and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who had disease progression on one to two lines of prior hormonal therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2017;35[25]:2875-84).

At ESMO 2019, George W. Sledge Jr., MD, of Stanford (Calif.) Medical Center, and colleagues reported the OS results, a secondary endpoint for the trial (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782). At the prespecified interim analysis point, median OS for abema-F was 46.7 months vs. 37.3 months for placebo-F (HR, 0.757; 95% CI 0.505-0.945; P = .0137). Patients with greatest benefit from abema-F were exactly the patients who needed the most help – those with visceral metastases (HR 0.675) and with primary resistance to prior hormonal therapy (HR, 0.686).

At 3 years, at least three times as many patients remained progression free with abema-F, compared with placebo-F, and the abema-F patients experienced prolongation in time to eventual chemotherapy (50.2 months vs. 22.1 months; HR, 0.625).

What this means in clinical practice

Many times I find myself sitting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and thinking, “Only a medical oncologist like me would find this result exciting.” Prior to ESMO 2019, MONARCH 2 (and a similar study presented at ESMO 2019, MONALEESA-3, which employed an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, with similar OS results) added to the body of literature that caused NCCN guidelines to list all of the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative mBC. NCCN guidelines have the caveat that, among patients with disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting, there are no data to support continuing the CDK 4/6 inhibitor or switching to an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor thereafter.

For that shrinking group of patients and doctors who choose to avoid CDK 4/6 inhibitors for first-line treatment, as we describe risks and benefits of using a CDK 4/6 inhibitor for second- or third-line therapy, we have high-quality OS information from ESMO 2019 to answer the “Is it worth it?” question.

Are the results of MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3 practice changing? No. We were already convinced. Should we be excited that we have this new information for discussions with our patients? Absolutely.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies that previously reported significant progression-free survival (PFS) improvements and more recently, at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, overall survival (OS) benefit. I reflect on the significance of these new reports in the wake of previously reported data and guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Osimertinib in advanced NSCLC

In the double-blind, phase 3 FLAURA trial, 556 patients with EGFR-mutated (EGFRm), advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received osimertinib or a standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) as initial treatment. PFS, the primary endpoint, was clinically and statistically better for osimertinib (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; P less than .001), overall and in all major subgroups. There were fewer grade 3-4 adverse events and fewer permanent treatment discontinuations with osimertinib.

At the time of initial publication, OS data were immature, but because of the substantial survival improvements previously noted, osimertinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for first-line treatment of EGFRm stage IV NSCLC patients in April 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:113-25).

More recently, at ESMO 2019, Suresh Ramalingam, MD, of the department of hematology and medical oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, and colleagues reported the OS results. Crossover to osimertinib was allowed for patients on the standard TKI arm when they had progressive disease and a T790M mutation. Osimertinib produced a median OS of 38.6 months, compared with 31.8 months for standard TKI (HR, 0.799; P = .0462), a 24-month OS rate of 74% vs. 59% (with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals), and a 36-month OS rate of 54% vs. 44%. These benefits were interpreted to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

The 31.8-month median OS for standard TKI was competitive with the highest reported OS for standard therapy, perhaps because crossover to osimertinib was permitted.

What this means in clinical practice

The report by Dr. Ramalingam and colleagues – and the next abstract I will review – remind me of the famous “You had me at Hello” line from “Jerry Maguire.”

For patient education – and perhaps for some national regulatory agencies – it is good that we now have definition of what the average OS is with osimertinib, compared with standard TKI followed by osimertinib. However, very few oncologists in the United States likely use the latter strategy anymore. It was clear when the impressive PFS and toxicity information appeared in 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine that osimertinib is the best tolerated, most durably effective front-line treatment for EGFRm mNSCLC, regardless of disease extent, sex, nationality, type of EGFRm (L858R amino acid substitution in exon 21 or exon 19 deletion), or presence/absence of central nervous system metastases.

In NCCN guidelines, osimertinib was listed as the preferred TKI, prior to the OS report at ESMO 2019. The challenges going forward will be to identify high-risk patient subsets who might benefit from drug combinations or novel new agents.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant

In the MONARCH 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (abema-F) significantly improved PFS, in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant (placebo-F; 16.9 months vs. 9.3 months; HR, 0.563) in 669 premenopausal (with concurrent ovarian function suppression) and postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who had disease progression on one to two lines of prior hormonal therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2017;35[25]:2875-84).

At ESMO 2019, George W. Sledge Jr., MD, of Stanford (Calif.) Medical Center, and colleagues reported the OS results, a secondary endpoint for the trial (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782). At the prespecified interim analysis point, median OS for abema-F was 46.7 months vs. 37.3 months for placebo-F (HR, 0.757; 95% CI 0.505-0.945; P = .0137). Patients with greatest benefit from abema-F were exactly the patients who needed the most help – those with visceral metastases (HR 0.675) and with primary resistance to prior hormonal therapy (HR, 0.686).

At 3 years, at least three times as many patients remained progression free with abema-F, compared with placebo-F, and the abema-F patients experienced prolongation in time to eventual chemotherapy (50.2 months vs. 22.1 months; HR, 0.625).

What this means in clinical practice

Many times I find myself sitting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and thinking, “Only a medical oncologist like me would find this result exciting.” Prior to ESMO 2019, MONARCH 2 (and a similar study presented at ESMO 2019, MONALEESA-3, which employed an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, with similar OS results) added to the body of literature that caused NCCN guidelines to list all of the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for first- or second-line use in patients with hormone-receptor positive, HER2/neu-negative mBC. NCCN guidelines have the caveat that, among patients with disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the first-line setting, there are no data to support continuing the CDK 4/6 inhibitor or switching to an alternative CDK 4/6 inhibitor thereafter.

For that shrinking group of patients and doctors who choose to avoid CDK 4/6 inhibitors for first-line treatment, as we describe risks and benefits of using a CDK 4/6 inhibitor for second- or third-line therapy, we have high-quality OS information from ESMO 2019 to answer the “Is it worth it?” question.

Are the results of MONARCH 2 and MONALEESA-3 practice changing? No. We were already convinced. Should we be excited that we have this new information for discussions with our patients? Absolutely.
 

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Atezolizumab monotherapy can improve overall survival (OS) in treatment-naive patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high PD-L1 expression, interim results of a phase 3 trial suggest.

When compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, atezolizumab significantly improved OS in patients who had PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater on tumor cells (TC) or 10% or greater on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC).

Patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression had a numerical, but not statistically significant, benefit in OS with atezolizumab.

Giuseppe Giaccone, MD, PhD, of Georgetown University, Washington, presented these results, from the IMpower110 trial, as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

The trial enrolled treatment-naive, PD-L1–selected patients with stage IV NSCLC. Patients with EGFR-positive or ALK-positive NSCLC were excluded.

The overall population consisted of 554 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% on TC or IC (TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). There were 328 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 5% on TC or IC (TC2/3 or IC2/3) and 205 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% on TC or 10% on IC (TC3 or IC3).

All patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy. Atezolizumab was given at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. In the chemotherapy arm, patients with nonsquamous NSCLC received cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed, and patients with squamous NSCLC received cisplatin or carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Chemotherapy was given for 4-6 cycles, after which patients received pemetrexed (nonsquamous) or best supportive care (squamous) until progression.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms and across the PD-L1 subgroups.
 

Overall survival

OS was evaluated hierarchically, starting with the TC3 or IC3 population. This group had a significant improvement in OS with atezolizumab. At a median follow-up of 15.7 months, the median OS was 13.1 months with chemotherapy and 20.2 months with atezolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106).

The TC2/3 or IC2/3 population had a numerical, but not significant, improvement in OS with atezolizumab. At a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 14.9 months with chemotherapy and 18.2 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.72; P = .0416).

“The prespecified alpha boundary was not crossed in this analysis,” Dr. Giaccone said. “Therefore, it cannot be considered statistically significant, although, numerically, there is clearly an advantage with atezolizumab versus chemotherapy.”

There was no significant improvement in OS in the overall population (TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). At a median follow-up of 13.4 months, the median OS was 14.1 months in the chemotherapy arm and 17.5 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.83; P = .1481).

Dr. Giaccone noted that 29.6% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 49.5% of those in the chemotherapy arm received at least one subsequent cancer therapy. The proportion of patients that received second-line cancer therapies was similar across the PD-L1 subgroups.
 

Progression-free survival

Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better with atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

In the TC3/IC3 population, the median PFS was 5.0 months with chemotherapy and 8.1 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.63; P = .0070). In the TC2/3 or IC2/3 group, the median PFS was 5.5 months with chemotherapy and 7.2 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.67; P = .0030). In the overall population, the median PFS was 5.5 months with chemotherapy and 5.7 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.77; P = .0104).
 

Safety

“The safety profile of atezolizumab was consistent with prior observations,” Dr. Giaccone said.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 90.2% in the atezolizumab arm and 94.7% in the chemotherapy arm. Rates of grade 3/4 related AEs were 12.9% and 44.1%, respectively. There was one grade 5 AE in the chemotherapy arm and none in the atezolizumab arm.

AEs that were more frequent with atezolizumab included increased aspartate aminotransferase, pruritus, and hypothyroidism.

This trial is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche, and Dr. Giaccone disclosed grants and nonfinancial support from the company.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Giaccone G et al. SITC 2019, Abstract O81.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Atezolizumab monotherapy can improve overall survival (OS) in treatment-naive patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high PD-L1 expression, interim results of a phase 3 trial suggest.

When compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, atezolizumab significantly improved OS in patients who had PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater on tumor cells (TC) or 10% or greater on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC).

Patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression had a numerical, but not statistically significant, benefit in OS with atezolizumab.

Giuseppe Giaccone, MD, PhD, of Georgetown University, Washington, presented these results, from the IMpower110 trial, as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

The trial enrolled treatment-naive, PD-L1–selected patients with stage IV NSCLC. Patients with EGFR-positive or ALK-positive NSCLC were excluded.

The overall population consisted of 554 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% on TC or IC (TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). There were 328 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 5% on TC or IC (TC2/3 or IC2/3) and 205 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% on TC or 10% on IC (TC3 or IC3).

All patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy. Atezolizumab was given at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. In the chemotherapy arm, patients with nonsquamous NSCLC received cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed, and patients with squamous NSCLC received cisplatin or carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Chemotherapy was given for 4-6 cycles, after which patients received pemetrexed (nonsquamous) or best supportive care (squamous) until progression.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms and across the PD-L1 subgroups.
 

Overall survival

OS was evaluated hierarchically, starting with the TC3 or IC3 population. This group had a significant improvement in OS with atezolizumab. At a median follow-up of 15.7 months, the median OS was 13.1 months with chemotherapy and 20.2 months with atezolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106).

The TC2/3 or IC2/3 population had a numerical, but not significant, improvement in OS with atezolizumab. At a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 14.9 months with chemotherapy and 18.2 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.72; P = .0416).

“The prespecified alpha boundary was not crossed in this analysis,” Dr. Giaccone said. “Therefore, it cannot be considered statistically significant, although, numerically, there is clearly an advantage with atezolizumab versus chemotherapy.”

There was no significant improvement in OS in the overall population (TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). At a median follow-up of 13.4 months, the median OS was 14.1 months in the chemotherapy arm and 17.5 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.83; P = .1481).

Dr. Giaccone noted that 29.6% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 49.5% of those in the chemotherapy arm received at least one subsequent cancer therapy. The proportion of patients that received second-line cancer therapies was similar across the PD-L1 subgroups.
 

Progression-free survival

Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better with atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

In the TC3/IC3 population, the median PFS was 5.0 months with chemotherapy and 8.1 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.63; P = .0070). In the TC2/3 or IC2/3 group, the median PFS was 5.5 months with chemotherapy and 7.2 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.67; P = .0030). In the overall population, the median PFS was 5.5 months with chemotherapy and 5.7 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.77; P = .0104).
 

Safety

“The safety profile of atezolizumab was consistent with prior observations,” Dr. Giaccone said.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 90.2% in the atezolizumab arm and 94.7% in the chemotherapy arm. Rates of grade 3/4 related AEs were 12.9% and 44.1%, respectively. There was one grade 5 AE in the chemotherapy arm and none in the atezolizumab arm.

AEs that were more frequent with atezolizumab included increased aspartate aminotransferase, pruritus, and hypothyroidism.

This trial is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche, and Dr. Giaccone disclosed grants and nonfinancial support from the company.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Giaccone G et al. SITC 2019, Abstract O81.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Atezolizumab monotherapy can improve overall survival (OS) in treatment-naive patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high PD-L1 expression, interim results of a phase 3 trial suggest.

When compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, atezolizumab significantly improved OS in patients who had PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater on tumor cells (TC) or 10% or greater on tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC).

Patients with lower levels of PD-L1 expression had a numerical, but not statistically significant, benefit in OS with atezolizumab.

Giuseppe Giaccone, MD, PhD, of Georgetown University, Washington, presented these results, from the IMpower110 trial, as a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.

The trial enrolled treatment-naive, PD-L1–selected patients with stage IV NSCLC. Patients with EGFR-positive or ALK-positive NSCLC were excluded.

The overall population consisted of 554 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% on TC or IC (TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). There were 328 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 5% on TC or IC (TC2/3 or IC2/3) and 205 patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% on TC or 10% on IC (TC3 or IC3).

All patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy. Atezolizumab was given at 1,200 mg every 3 weeks until disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. In the chemotherapy arm, patients with nonsquamous NSCLC received cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed, and patients with squamous NSCLC received cisplatin or carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Chemotherapy was given for 4-6 cycles, after which patients received pemetrexed (nonsquamous) or best supportive care (squamous) until progression.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms and across the PD-L1 subgroups.
 

Overall survival

OS was evaluated hierarchically, starting with the TC3 or IC3 population. This group had a significant improvement in OS with atezolizumab. At a median follow-up of 15.7 months, the median OS was 13.1 months with chemotherapy and 20.2 months with atezolizumab (hazard ratio, 0.59; P = .0106).

The TC2/3 or IC2/3 population had a numerical, but not significant, improvement in OS with atezolizumab. At a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 14.9 months with chemotherapy and 18.2 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.72; P = .0416).

“The prespecified alpha boundary was not crossed in this analysis,” Dr. Giaccone said. “Therefore, it cannot be considered statistically significant, although, numerically, there is clearly an advantage with atezolizumab versus chemotherapy.”

There was no significant improvement in OS in the overall population (TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3). At a median follow-up of 13.4 months, the median OS was 14.1 months in the chemotherapy arm and 17.5 months in the atezolizumab arm (HR, 0.83; P = .1481).

Dr. Giaccone noted that 29.6% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 49.5% of those in the chemotherapy arm received at least one subsequent cancer therapy. The proportion of patients that received second-line cancer therapies was similar across the PD-L1 subgroups.
 

Progression-free survival

Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better with atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 expression.

In the TC3/IC3 population, the median PFS was 5.0 months with chemotherapy and 8.1 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.63; P = .0070). In the TC2/3 or IC2/3 group, the median PFS was 5.5 months with chemotherapy and 7.2 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.67; P = .0030). In the overall population, the median PFS was 5.5 months with chemotherapy and 5.7 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.77; P = .0104).
 

Safety

“The safety profile of atezolizumab was consistent with prior observations,” Dr. Giaccone said.

The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was 90.2% in the atezolizumab arm and 94.7% in the chemotherapy arm. Rates of grade 3/4 related AEs were 12.9% and 44.1%, respectively. There was one grade 5 AE in the chemotherapy arm and none in the atezolizumab arm.

AEs that were more frequent with atezolizumab included increased aspartate aminotransferase, pruritus, and hypothyroidism.

This trial is sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche, and Dr. Giaccone disclosed grants and nonfinancial support from the company.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Giaccone G et al. SITC 2019, Abstract O81.

SAN FRANCISCO – A review of lung cancer cases in New York suggests that 2011 guidelines issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have made little difference in addressing ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer diagnosis. The review showed some progress; however, whites were still more likely than blacks and Hispanics to be diagnosed with early-stage disease even after the guidelines were released. The researchers also found a reduced incidence of lung cancer only in whites.

The guidelines call for CT screening for smokers aged 55-74 years that have a 30 pack-year history within the past 15 years and were based on a lung cancer screening trial showing that annual low-dose CT led to a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths, compared with chest x-ray (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:395-409).

Nonwhites “aren’t always exposed to screening opportunities, and may be taken care of by providers who haven’t necessarily bought into screening or aren’t necessarily aware of it. So the downstream effects of the lack of access to screening hurts them doubly, because they’re diagnosed later and they also have disparities in access to treatment,” said Elizabeth David, MD, in an interview. Dr. David is an associate professor of surgery of University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She comoderated a session at the annual congress of the American College of Surgeons, where the research was presented.

The findings underscore the need to get the word out to primary care providers in all communities that catching lung cancer early can make all the difference to patients. “The more we can do to talk about lung cancer as a treatable disease and a cancer that can become a chronically managed medical problem for patients, rather than a death sentence, which it has the misperception of being, the more we can encourage people to seek treatment when they have a symptom, instead of being afraid and doing nothing,” said Dr. David.

The researchers considered metropolitan New York to be a good test case to examine the impact of the screening guidelines since it is socioeconomically and racially diverse. “New York presents a microcosm of what’s going on nationally in other urban areas,” said Tamar Nobel, MD, from Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the study.

The researchers analyzed records from the New York State Cancer Registry from the period 2008-201 and compared that with data from 2012-2015 (total, n = 18,284). The incidence of lung cancer declined among whites from the first period to the second, at an average annual percent change of –1.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.0% to –2.0%). A similar result was seen in Hispanics (–1.7%; 95% CI, –0.4% to –2.9%), but not among blacks (–1.2%; not significant). There was an increase among Asians/Pacific Islanders (+1.4%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 2.2%).

There were also inequalities when it came to the odds of a stage I diagnosis. Although the percentages increased in whites (+3.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-6.4%) and blacks (+6.0%; 95% CI, 2.3%-9.7%), the median percentage was higher among whites (27.6% versus 18.2%; no overlap among 95% CIs; odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.68). Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders experienced no significant changes in their odds of a stage I diagnosis, and both groups remained significantly less likely than whites to be diagnosed with stage I disease (OR, 0.72 and 0.86, respectively, both significant).

No funding was disclosed. Dr. David and Dr. Nobel have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Nobel T et al. ACS Clinical Congress 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.08.607.

SAN FRANCISCO – A review of lung cancer cases in New York suggests that 2011 guidelines issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have made little difference in addressing ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer diagnosis. The review showed some progress; however, whites were still more likely than blacks and Hispanics to be diagnosed with early-stage disease even after the guidelines were released. The researchers also found a reduced incidence of lung cancer only in whites.

The guidelines call for CT screening for smokers aged 55-74 years that have a 30 pack-year history within the past 15 years and were based on a lung cancer screening trial showing that annual low-dose CT led to a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths, compared with chest x-ray (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:395-409).

Nonwhites “aren’t always exposed to screening opportunities, and may be taken care of by providers who haven’t necessarily bought into screening or aren’t necessarily aware of it. So the downstream effects of the lack of access to screening hurts them doubly, because they’re diagnosed later and they also have disparities in access to treatment,” said Elizabeth David, MD, in an interview. Dr. David is an associate professor of surgery of University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She comoderated a session at the annual congress of the American College of Surgeons, where the research was presented.

The findings underscore the need to get the word out to primary care providers in all communities that catching lung cancer early can make all the difference to patients. “The more we can do to talk about lung cancer as a treatable disease and a cancer that can become a chronically managed medical problem for patients, rather than a death sentence, which it has the misperception of being, the more we can encourage people to seek treatment when they have a symptom, instead of being afraid and doing nothing,” said Dr. David.

The researchers considered metropolitan New York to be a good test case to examine the impact of the screening guidelines since it is socioeconomically and racially diverse. “New York presents a microcosm of what’s going on nationally in other urban areas,” said Tamar Nobel, MD, from Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the study.

The researchers analyzed records from the New York State Cancer Registry from the period 2008-201 and compared that with data from 2012-2015 (total, n = 18,284). The incidence of lung cancer declined among whites from the first period to the second, at an average annual percent change of –1.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.0% to –2.0%). A similar result was seen in Hispanics (–1.7%; 95% CI, –0.4% to –2.9%), but not among blacks (–1.2%; not significant). There was an increase among Asians/Pacific Islanders (+1.4%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 2.2%).

There were also inequalities when it came to the odds of a stage I diagnosis. Although the percentages increased in whites (+3.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-6.4%) and blacks (+6.0%; 95% CI, 2.3%-9.7%), the median percentage was higher among whites (27.6% versus 18.2%; no overlap among 95% CIs; odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.68). Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders experienced no significant changes in their odds of a stage I diagnosis, and both groups remained significantly less likely than whites to be diagnosed with stage I disease (OR, 0.72 and 0.86, respectively, both significant).

No funding was disclosed. Dr. David and Dr. Nobel have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Nobel T et al. ACS Clinical Congress 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.08.607.

SAN FRANCISCO – A review of lung cancer cases in New York suggests that 2011 guidelines issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have made little difference in addressing ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer diagnosis. The review showed some progress; however, whites were still more likely than blacks and Hispanics to be diagnosed with early-stage disease even after the guidelines were released. The researchers also found a reduced incidence of lung cancer only in whites.

The guidelines call for CT screening for smokers aged 55-74 years that have a 30 pack-year history within the past 15 years and were based on a lung cancer screening trial showing that annual low-dose CT led to a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths, compared with chest x-ray (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:395-409).

Nonwhites “aren’t always exposed to screening opportunities, and may be taken care of by providers who haven’t necessarily bought into screening or aren’t necessarily aware of it. So the downstream effects of the lack of access to screening hurts them doubly, because they’re diagnosed later and they also have disparities in access to treatment,” said Elizabeth David, MD, in an interview. Dr. David is an associate professor of surgery of University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She comoderated a session at the annual congress of the American College of Surgeons, where the research was presented.

The findings underscore the need to get the word out to primary care providers in all communities that catching lung cancer early can make all the difference to patients. “The more we can do to talk about lung cancer as a treatable disease and a cancer that can become a chronically managed medical problem for patients, rather than a death sentence, which it has the misperception of being, the more we can encourage people to seek treatment when they have a symptom, instead of being afraid and doing nothing,” said Dr. David.

The researchers considered metropolitan New York to be a good test case to examine the impact of the screening guidelines since it is socioeconomically and racially diverse. “New York presents a microcosm of what’s going on nationally in other urban areas,” said Tamar Nobel, MD, from Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, who presented the study.

The researchers analyzed records from the New York State Cancer Registry from the period 2008-201 and compared that with data from 2012-2015 (total, n = 18,284). The incidence of lung cancer declined among whites from the first period to the second, at an average annual percent change of –1.5% (95% confidence interval, –1.0% to –2.0%). A similar result was seen in Hispanics (–1.7%; 95% CI, –0.4% to –2.9%), but not among blacks (–1.2%; not significant). There was an increase among Asians/Pacific Islanders (+1.4%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 2.2%).

There were also inequalities when it came to the odds of a stage I diagnosis. Although the percentages increased in whites (+3.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-6.4%) and blacks (+6.0%; 95% CI, 2.3%-9.7%), the median percentage was higher among whites (27.6% versus 18.2%; no overlap among 95% CIs; odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.68). Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders experienced no significant changes in their odds of a stage I diagnosis, and both groups remained significantly less likely than whites to be diagnosed with stage I disease (OR, 0.72 and 0.86, respectively, both significant).

No funding was disclosed. Dr. David and Dr. Nobel have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Nobel T et al. ACS Clinical Congress 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.08.607.

While lung cancer is generally on the decline among both sexes, men have a ways to go to catch up with women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”

The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.

In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).

Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).

There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.

Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).

Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.

Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).

Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.

Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.

“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”

However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.

While lung cancer is generally on the decline among both sexes, men have a ways to go to catch up with women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”

The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.

In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).

Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).

There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.

Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).

Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.

Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).

Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.

Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.

“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”

However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.

While lung cancer is generally on the decline among both sexes, men have a ways to go to catch up with women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”

The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.

In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).

Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).

There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.

Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).

Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.

Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).

Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.

Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.

“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”

However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.

BARCELONA – Nivolumab, compared with docetaxel chemotherapy, led to a fivefold improvement in 5-year overall survival among previously treated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of data from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 trials.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates from the two randomized registrational trials, which established the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab as the standard salvage therapy for NSCLC, were 13.4% vs. 2.6% (median, 11.1 vs. 8.1 months) with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively, Scott Gettinger, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“These are the first randomized trials to report 5-year outcomes for a PD-1 axis inhibitor in patients with previously treated advanced non–small lung cancer,” said Dr. Gettinger, a professor at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn. “This is really unprecedented; we wouldn’t expect many patients to be out 5 years in this scenario.”

Notably, the 5-year OS benefit was seen in both trials, he said, explaining that each compared nivolumab and docetaxel, but CheckMate 017 included patients with only squamous NSCLC, and CheckMate 057 included only non–squamous NSCLC patients.

The trials randomized 272 and 582 patients, respectively, and both demonstrated significantly improved 12-month OS with nivolumab – regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Common eligibility criteria included stage IIIb/IV disease, good performance status (ECOG performance score of 0-1), and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy; CheckMate 057 further allowed prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for known anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and allowed prior maintenance therapy. Doses in both trials were 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 75 mg/m² of intravenous docetaxel every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The pooled data also showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years (8% vs. 0%) with nivolumab vs. docetaxel groups.

“Again, we don’t see this in trials – more commonly we see zero patients without progression, and that’s what we saw with the docetaxel arm,” said Dr. Gettinger, who also is the Disease Aligned Research Team Leader, Thoracic Oncology Program, at the cancer center.

The median duration of responses with nivolumab was 19.9 months vs. 5.6 months with docetaxel, and 32.2% of nivolumab responders were still without progression at 5 years, he noted.

A common question in the clinic relates to the prognosis in patients who do well with PD-1 axis inhibitors, which prompted an additional analysis across the two trials, he said, noting that 60%, 78%, and 88% of patients who had not progressed at 2, 3, or 4 years, respectively, also had not progressed at 5 years, and 80%, 93%, and 100%, of patients in those groups were alive at 5 years. In the docetaxel arm, only 4, 1, and 0 patients had PFS at 2, 3, and 4, years, respectively, and none of those patients survived to 5 years, he said.

No new safety signals were seen with long-term follow-up, he added.

“In fact there was only one grade 3 or higher toxicity that was related to treatment in the nivolumab arm, and this was a grade 3 lipase elevation. There was one patient who discontinued nivolumab after 3 years, and this was for a grade 2 rash and eczema that had waxed and waned since starting nivolumab,” he said.

Also of note, 10% of nivolumab-treated patients who were off treatment at 5 years – for variable periods of time – had not progressed and had not received subsequent therapy.

“So we clearly see benefit in our patients long after they finish a course or stop for some reason,” he said.

CheckMate 017 and 057 were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Gettinger reported advisory board and/or consulting work for, and/or research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Iovance, and Takeda/Ariad.

SOURCE: Gettinger S et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PR04.03.

BARCELONA – Nivolumab, compared with docetaxel chemotherapy, led to a fivefold improvement in 5-year overall survival among previously treated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of data from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 trials.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates from the two randomized registrational trials, which established the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab as the standard salvage therapy for NSCLC, were 13.4% vs. 2.6% (median, 11.1 vs. 8.1 months) with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively, Scott Gettinger, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“These are the first randomized trials to report 5-year outcomes for a PD-1 axis inhibitor in patients with previously treated advanced non–small lung cancer,” said Dr. Gettinger, a professor at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn. “This is really unprecedented; we wouldn’t expect many patients to be out 5 years in this scenario.”

Notably, the 5-year OS benefit was seen in both trials, he said, explaining that each compared nivolumab and docetaxel, but CheckMate 017 included patients with only squamous NSCLC, and CheckMate 057 included only non–squamous NSCLC patients.

The trials randomized 272 and 582 patients, respectively, and both demonstrated significantly improved 12-month OS with nivolumab – regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Common eligibility criteria included stage IIIb/IV disease, good performance status (ECOG performance score of 0-1), and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy; CheckMate 057 further allowed prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for known anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and allowed prior maintenance therapy. Doses in both trials were 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 75 mg/m² of intravenous docetaxel every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The pooled data also showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years (8% vs. 0%) with nivolumab vs. docetaxel groups.

“Again, we don’t see this in trials – more commonly we see zero patients without progression, and that’s what we saw with the docetaxel arm,” said Dr. Gettinger, who also is the Disease Aligned Research Team Leader, Thoracic Oncology Program, at the cancer center.

The median duration of responses with nivolumab was 19.9 months vs. 5.6 months with docetaxel, and 32.2% of nivolumab responders were still without progression at 5 years, he noted.

A common question in the clinic relates to the prognosis in patients who do well with PD-1 axis inhibitors, which prompted an additional analysis across the two trials, he said, noting that 60%, 78%, and 88% of patients who had not progressed at 2, 3, or 4 years, respectively, also had not progressed at 5 years, and 80%, 93%, and 100%, of patients in those groups were alive at 5 years. In the docetaxel arm, only 4, 1, and 0 patients had PFS at 2, 3, and 4, years, respectively, and none of those patients survived to 5 years, he said.

No new safety signals were seen with long-term follow-up, he added.

“In fact there was only one grade 3 or higher toxicity that was related to treatment in the nivolumab arm, and this was a grade 3 lipase elevation. There was one patient who discontinued nivolumab after 3 years, and this was for a grade 2 rash and eczema that had waxed and waned since starting nivolumab,” he said.

Also of note, 10% of nivolumab-treated patients who were off treatment at 5 years – for variable periods of time – had not progressed and had not received subsequent therapy.

“So we clearly see benefit in our patients long after they finish a course or stop for some reason,” he said.

CheckMate 017 and 057 were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Gettinger reported advisory board and/or consulting work for, and/or research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Iovance, and Takeda/Ariad.

SOURCE: Gettinger S et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PR04.03.

BARCELONA – Nivolumab, compared with docetaxel chemotherapy, led to a fivefold improvement in 5-year overall survival among previously treated patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to a pooled analysis of data from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 trials.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates from the two randomized registrational trials, which established the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab as the standard salvage therapy for NSCLC, were 13.4% vs. 2.6% (median, 11.1 vs. 8.1 months) with nivolumab and docetaxel, respectively, Scott Gettinger, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“These are the first randomized trials to report 5-year outcomes for a PD-1 axis inhibitor in patients with previously treated advanced non–small lung cancer,” said Dr. Gettinger, a professor at the Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn. “This is really unprecedented; we wouldn’t expect many patients to be out 5 years in this scenario.”

Notably, the 5-year OS benefit was seen in both trials, he said, explaining that each compared nivolumab and docetaxel, but CheckMate 017 included patients with only squamous NSCLC, and CheckMate 057 included only non–squamous NSCLC patients.

The trials randomized 272 and 582 patients, respectively, and both demonstrated significantly improved 12-month OS with nivolumab – regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels. Common eligibility criteria included stage IIIb/IV disease, good performance status (ECOG performance score of 0-1), and 1 prior platinum-based chemotherapy; CheckMate 057 further allowed prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for known anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, and allowed prior maintenance therapy. Doses in both trials were 3 mg/kg of nivolumab every 2 weeks or 75 mg/m² of intravenous docetaxel every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The pooled data also showed an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at 5 years (8% vs. 0%) with nivolumab vs. docetaxel groups.

“Again, we don’t see this in trials – more commonly we see zero patients without progression, and that’s what we saw with the docetaxel arm,” said Dr. Gettinger, who also is the Disease Aligned Research Team Leader, Thoracic Oncology Program, at the cancer center.

The median duration of responses with nivolumab was 19.9 months vs. 5.6 months with docetaxel, and 32.2% of nivolumab responders were still without progression at 5 years, he noted.

A common question in the clinic relates to the prognosis in patients who do well with PD-1 axis inhibitors, which prompted an additional analysis across the two trials, he said, noting that 60%, 78%, and 88% of patients who had not progressed at 2, 3, or 4 years, respectively, also had not progressed at 5 years, and 80%, 93%, and 100%, of patients in those groups were alive at 5 years. In the docetaxel arm, only 4, 1, and 0 patients had PFS at 2, 3, and 4, years, respectively, and none of those patients survived to 5 years, he said.

No new safety signals were seen with long-term follow-up, he added.

“In fact there was only one grade 3 or higher toxicity that was related to treatment in the nivolumab arm, and this was a grade 3 lipase elevation. There was one patient who discontinued nivolumab after 3 years, and this was for a grade 2 rash and eczema that had waxed and waned since starting nivolumab,” he said.

Also of note, 10% of nivolumab-treated patients who were off treatment at 5 years – for variable periods of time – had not progressed and had not received subsequent therapy.

“So we clearly see benefit in our patients long after they finish a course or stop for some reason,” he said.

CheckMate 017 and 057 were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Gettinger reported advisory board and/or consulting work for, and/or research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nektar Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Iovance, and Takeda/Ariad.

SOURCE: Gettinger S et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract PR04.03.

NEW ORLEANS – Robotic bronchoscopy with shape-sensing technology performed more effectively in comparison with standard techniques for localizing and puncturing nodules in the periphery of the lung.

A prospective study in a cadaver model showed that robotic bronchoscopy targeted nodules more effectively than electromagnetic navigation or an ultrathin bronchoscope with radial endobronchial ultrasound (UTB-rEBUS).

“This is really the first study to randomize, blind, and compare procedural outcomes between existing technologies in advanced bronchoscopy,” said Lonny Yarmus, DO, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Dr. Yarmus described this study, PRECISION-1, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Chest Physicians. The study was designed to compare the following:

• UTB-rEBUS (3.0 mm outer diameter and 1.7 mm working channel).
• Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (Superdimension version 7.1).
• Robotic bronchoscopy (3.5 mm outer diameter and 2.0-mm working channel).

With all methods, a 21-gauge needle was used. For each nodule, UTB-rEBUS was done first to eliminate potential localization bias. The subsequent order of electromagnetic navigation and robotic bronchoscopy was determined based on block randomization.

Eight bronchoscopists performed a total of 60 procedures using each of the methods to target 20 nodules implanted in cadavers. The nodules were distributed across all lobes, 80% were in the outer third of the lung, and 50% had a positive bronchus sign on computed tomography (CT). The mean nodule size was 16.5 plus or minus 1.5 mm.

The study’s primary endpoint was the ability to localize and puncture target nodules within a maximum of three attempts per method. This includes center, peripheral, and distal punctures of nodules. Cone-beam CT was used to confirm that needles punctured the target lesions. The bronchoscopists were blinded to cone-beam CT results, and a blinded, independent investigator assessed whether nodule punctures were successful. The primary endpoint was met in 25% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 45% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 80% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

The study’s secondary endpoint was localization success, which was defined as navigation to within needle biopsy distance of the nodule. This includes center, peripheral, and distal punctures of nodules, as well as adjacent punctures (touching the nodule but not within it). The secondary endpoint was met in 35% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 65% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 90% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

The researchers also assessed successful navigation, which was defined as the provider localizing with software or radial ultrasound and passing the needle to make a biopsy attempt. Navigation was successful in 65% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 85% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 100% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

“Utilization of robotic bronchoscopy with shape-sensing technology can significantly increase the ability to localize and puncture lesions when compared with standard existing technologies,” Dr. Yarmus said in closing.

He did note that this research was done in a cadaveric model, so “prospective, randomized, and comparative in vivo studies are needed.”

This study was funded by the Association of Interventional Pulmonary Program Directors. Dr. Yarmus disclosed government and societal funding and relationships with Boston Scientific, Veran, Medtronic, Intuitive, Auris, Erbe, Olympus, BD, Rocket, Ambu, Inspire Medical, and AstraZeneca.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yarmus L et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.311.

NEW ORLEANS – Robotic bronchoscopy with shape-sensing technology performed more effectively in comparison with standard techniques for localizing and puncturing nodules in the periphery of the lung.

A prospective study in a cadaver model showed that robotic bronchoscopy targeted nodules more effectively than electromagnetic navigation or an ultrathin bronchoscope with radial endobronchial ultrasound (UTB-rEBUS).

“This is really the first study to randomize, blind, and compare procedural outcomes between existing technologies in advanced bronchoscopy,” said Lonny Yarmus, DO, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Dr. Yarmus described this study, PRECISION-1, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Chest Physicians. The study was designed to compare the following:

• UTB-rEBUS (3.0 mm outer diameter and 1.7 mm working channel).
• Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (Superdimension version 7.1).
• Robotic bronchoscopy (3.5 mm outer diameter and 2.0-mm working channel).

With all methods, a 21-gauge needle was used. For each nodule, UTB-rEBUS was done first to eliminate potential localization bias. The subsequent order of electromagnetic navigation and robotic bronchoscopy was determined based on block randomization.

Eight bronchoscopists performed a total of 60 procedures using each of the methods to target 20 nodules implanted in cadavers. The nodules were distributed across all lobes, 80% were in the outer third of the lung, and 50% had a positive bronchus sign on computed tomography (CT). The mean nodule size was 16.5 plus or minus 1.5 mm.

The study’s primary endpoint was the ability to localize and puncture target nodules within a maximum of three attempts per method. This includes center, peripheral, and distal punctures of nodules. Cone-beam CT was used to confirm that needles punctured the target lesions. The bronchoscopists were blinded to cone-beam CT results, and a blinded, independent investigator assessed whether nodule punctures were successful. The primary endpoint was met in 25% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 45% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 80% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

The study’s secondary endpoint was localization success, which was defined as navigation to within needle biopsy distance of the nodule. This includes center, peripheral, and distal punctures of nodules, as well as adjacent punctures (touching the nodule but not within it). The secondary endpoint was met in 35% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 65% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 90% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

The researchers also assessed successful navigation, which was defined as the provider localizing with software or radial ultrasound and passing the needle to make a biopsy attempt. Navigation was successful in 65% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 85% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 100% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

“Utilization of robotic bronchoscopy with shape-sensing technology can significantly increase the ability to localize and puncture lesions when compared with standard existing technologies,” Dr. Yarmus said in closing.

He did note that this research was done in a cadaveric model, so “prospective, randomized, and comparative in vivo studies are needed.”

This study was funded by the Association of Interventional Pulmonary Program Directors. Dr. Yarmus disclosed government and societal funding and relationships with Boston Scientific, Veran, Medtronic, Intuitive, Auris, Erbe, Olympus, BD, Rocket, Ambu, Inspire Medical, and AstraZeneca.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yarmus L et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.311.

NEW ORLEANS – Robotic bronchoscopy with shape-sensing technology performed more effectively in comparison with standard techniques for localizing and puncturing nodules in the periphery of the lung.

A prospective study in a cadaver model showed that robotic bronchoscopy targeted nodules more effectively than electromagnetic navigation or an ultrathin bronchoscope with radial endobronchial ultrasound (UTB-rEBUS).

“This is really the first study to randomize, blind, and compare procedural outcomes between existing technologies in advanced bronchoscopy,” said Lonny Yarmus, DO, of Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Dr. Yarmus described this study, PRECISION-1, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Chest Physicians. The study was designed to compare the following:

• UTB-rEBUS (3.0 mm outer diameter and 1.7 mm working channel).
• Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (Superdimension version 7.1).
• Robotic bronchoscopy (3.5 mm outer diameter and 2.0-mm working channel).

With all methods, a 21-gauge needle was used. For each nodule, UTB-rEBUS was done first to eliminate potential localization bias. The subsequent order of electromagnetic navigation and robotic bronchoscopy was determined based on block randomization.

Eight bronchoscopists performed a total of 60 procedures using each of the methods to target 20 nodules implanted in cadavers. The nodules were distributed across all lobes, 80% were in the outer third of the lung, and 50% had a positive bronchus sign on computed tomography (CT). The mean nodule size was 16.5 plus or minus 1.5 mm.

The study’s primary endpoint was the ability to localize and puncture target nodules within a maximum of three attempts per method. This includes center, peripheral, and distal punctures of nodules. Cone-beam CT was used to confirm that needles punctured the target lesions. The bronchoscopists were blinded to cone-beam CT results, and a blinded, independent investigator assessed whether nodule punctures were successful. The primary endpoint was met in 25% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 45% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 80% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

The study’s secondary endpoint was localization success, which was defined as navigation to within needle biopsy distance of the nodule. This includes center, peripheral, and distal punctures of nodules, as well as adjacent punctures (touching the nodule but not within it). The secondary endpoint was met in 35% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 65% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 90% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

The researchers also assessed successful navigation, which was defined as the provider localizing with software or radial ultrasound and passing the needle to make a biopsy attempt. Navigation was successful in 65% of UTB-rEBUS procedures, 85% of electromagnetic navigation procedures, and 100% of robotic bronchoscopy procedures.

“Utilization of robotic bronchoscopy with shape-sensing technology can significantly increase the ability to localize and puncture lesions when compared with standard existing technologies,” Dr. Yarmus said in closing.

He did note that this research was done in a cadaveric model, so “prospective, randomized, and comparative in vivo studies are needed.”

This study was funded by the Association of Interventional Pulmonary Program Directors. Dr. Yarmus disclosed government and societal funding and relationships with Boston Scientific, Veran, Medtronic, Intuitive, Auris, Erbe, Olympus, BD, Rocket, Ambu, Inspire Medical, and AstraZeneca.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yarmus L et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.311.

NEW ORLEANS – A novel electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy system can improve targeting of peripheral lung lesions, according to an industry-sponsored, prospective study.

The system, which incorporates fluoroscopic navigation, increased the percentage of cases in which the target overlapped with the lesion, from 60% to 83%. The percentage of cases without any target overlap decreased from 32% to 5%.

“Tomosynthesis-based fluoroscopic navigation … improves the three-dimensional convergence between the virtual target and the actual target,” said Krish Bhadra, MD, of CHI Memorial Medical Group in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Dr. Bhadra presented results with this system at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

He and his colleagues conducted a study of Medtronic’s superDimension navigation system (version 7.2), which provides real-time imaging with three-dimensional fluoroscopy. The system has a “local registration” feature, which uses fluoroscopy and an algorithm to update the virtual target location during the procedure. This allows the user to reposition the catheter based on the location of the lesion.

The researchers tested the system in 50 patients from two centers (NCT03585959). Patients’ lesions had to be larger than 10 mm, not visible endobronchially, and not reachable by convex endobronchial ultrasound. Lesions within 10 mm of the diaphragm were excluded.

The median lesion size was 17.0 mm, 61.2% were smaller than 20 mm, 65.3% were in the upper lobe, and 53.1% had a bronchus sign present. The median distance from lesion to pleura was 5.9 mm.

Dr. Bhadra said the system performed as designed in all cases, and the protocol-defined technical success rate was 95.9% (47/49). Local registration was attempted in 49 patients and was successful in 47 patients (95.9%). In the unsuccessful cases, local registration was not completed based on the system design because the correction distance was greater than 3.0 cm.

The study’s primary endpoint was three-dimensional overlap of the virtual target and the actual lesion, as confirmed by cone-beam computed tomography. Success was defined as greater than 0% overlap after location correction. Target overlap was achieved in 59.6% (28/47) of cases before local registration and 83.0% (39/47) of cases after.

There were six cases in which local registration was successful, but these subjects weren’t evaluable because of failed procedure recording. When those subjects were excluded, target overlap was achieved in 95.1% (39/41) of cases after local registration.

The median percent overlap between the virtual target and the actual lesion was 11.4% before local registration and 32.8% after. The percentage of cases without any target overlap decreased from 31.7% (13/41) before local registration to 4.9% (2/41) after.

Focusing on the two cases without target overlap, Dr. Bhadra noted that he was able to get a biopsy that proved a malignancy in one of those patients. In the other patient, Dr. Bhadra was able to identify features of organizing pneumonia.

“Even though we did not have overlap, we must have been close enough that we were able to get malignant tissue in one [patient] and features of organizing pneumonia in a patient who’s got no history of organizing pneumonia,” Dr. Bhadra said.

He and his colleagues did not evaluate diagnostic yield in this study, but they did assess complications up to 7 days after the procedure.

The team reported one case of pneumothorax, but the patient didn’t require a chest tube. Additionally, there were two cases of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, but the patients didn’t require any interventions.

This study was sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Bhadra disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, BodyVision, Auris Surgical Robotics, Intuitive Surgical, Veracyte, Biodesix, Merit Medical Endotek, and Johnson & Johnson.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bhadra K et al. CHEST 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.314.

NEW ORLEANS – A novel electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy system can improve targeting of peripheral lung lesions, according to an industry-sponsored, prospective study.

The system, which incorporates fluoroscopic navigation, increased the percentage of cases in which the target overlapped with the lesion, from 60% to 83%. The percentage of cases without any target overlap decreased from 32% to 5%.

“Tomosynthesis-based fluoroscopic navigation … improves the three-dimensional convergence between the virtual target and the actual target,” said Krish Bhadra, MD, of CHI Memorial Medical Group in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Dr. Bhadra presented results with this system at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

He and his colleagues conducted a study of Medtronic’s superDimension navigation system (version 7.2), which provides real-time imaging with three-dimensional fluoroscopy. The system has a “local registration” feature, which uses fluoroscopy and an algorithm to update the virtual target location during the procedure. This allows the user to reposition the catheter based on the location of the lesion.

The researchers tested the system in 50 patients from two centers (NCT03585959). Patients’ lesions had to be larger than 10 mm, not visible endobronchially, and not reachable by convex endobronchial ultrasound. Lesions within 10 mm of the diaphragm were excluded.

The median lesion size was 17.0 mm, 61.2% were smaller than 20 mm, 65.3% were in the upper lobe, and 53.1% had a bronchus sign present. The median distance from lesion to pleura was 5.9 mm.

Dr. Bhadra said the system performed as designed in all cases, and the protocol-defined technical success rate was 95.9% (47/49). Local registration was attempted in 49 patients and was successful in 47 patients (95.9%). In the unsuccessful cases, local registration was not completed based on the system design because the correction distance was greater than 3.0 cm.

The study’s primary endpoint was three-dimensional overlap of the virtual target and the actual lesion, as confirmed by cone-beam computed tomography. Success was defined as greater than 0% overlap after location correction. Target overlap was achieved in 59.6% (28/47) of cases before local registration and 83.0% (39/47) of cases after.

There were six cases in which local registration was successful, but these subjects weren’t evaluable because of failed procedure recording. When those subjects were excluded, target overlap was achieved in 95.1% (39/41) of cases after local registration.

The median percent overlap between the virtual target and the actual lesion was 11.4% before local registration and 32.8% after. The percentage of cases without any target overlap decreased from 31.7% (13/41) before local registration to 4.9% (2/41) after.

Focusing on the two cases without target overlap, Dr. Bhadra noted that he was able to get a biopsy that proved a malignancy in one of those patients. In the other patient, Dr. Bhadra was able to identify features of organizing pneumonia.

“Even though we did not have overlap, we must have been close enough that we were able to get malignant tissue in one [patient] and features of organizing pneumonia in a patient who’s got no history of organizing pneumonia,” Dr. Bhadra said.

He and his colleagues did not evaluate diagnostic yield in this study, but they did assess complications up to 7 days after the procedure.

The team reported one case of pneumothorax, but the patient didn’t require a chest tube. Additionally, there were two cases of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, but the patients didn’t require any interventions.

This study was sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Bhadra disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, BodyVision, Auris Surgical Robotics, Intuitive Surgical, Veracyte, Biodesix, Merit Medical Endotek, and Johnson & Johnson.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bhadra K et al. CHEST 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.314.

NEW ORLEANS – A novel electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy system can improve targeting of peripheral lung lesions, according to an industry-sponsored, prospective study.

The system, which incorporates fluoroscopic navigation, increased the percentage of cases in which the target overlapped with the lesion, from 60% to 83%. The percentage of cases without any target overlap decreased from 32% to 5%.

“Tomosynthesis-based fluoroscopic navigation … improves the three-dimensional convergence between the virtual target and the actual target,” said Krish Bhadra, MD, of CHI Memorial Medical Group in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Dr. Bhadra presented results with this system at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

He and his colleagues conducted a study of Medtronic’s superDimension navigation system (version 7.2), which provides real-time imaging with three-dimensional fluoroscopy. The system has a “local registration” feature, which uses fluoroscopy and an algorithm to update the virtual target location during the procedure. This allows the user to reposition the catheter based on the location of the lesion.

The researchers tested the system in 50 patients from two centers (NCT03585959). Patients’ lesions had to be larger than 10 mm, not visible endobronchially, and not reachable by convex endobronchial ultrasound. Lesions within 10 mm of the diaphragm were excluded.

The median lesion size was 17.0 mm, 61.2% were smaller than 20 mm, 65.3% were in the upper lobe, and 53.1% had a bronchus sign present. The median distance from lesion to pleura was 5.9 mm.

Dr. Bhadra said the system performed as designed in all cases, and the protocol-defined technical success rate was 95.9% (47/49). Local registration was attempted in 49 patients and was successful in 47 patients (95.9%). In the unsuccessful cases, local registration was not completed based on the system design because the correction distance was greater than 3.0 cm.

The study’s primary endpoint was three-dimensional overlap of the virtual target and the actual lesion, as confirmed by cone-beam computed tomography. Success was defined as greater than 0% overlap after location correction. Target overlap was achieved in 59.6% (28/47) of cases before local registration and 83.0% (39/47) of cases after.

There were six cases in which local registration was successful, but these subjects weren’t evaluable because of failed procedure recording. When those subjects were excluded, target overlap was achieved in 95.1% (39/41) of cases after local registration.

The median percent overlap between the virtual target and the actual lesion was 11.4% before local registration and 32.8% after. The percentage of cases without any target overlap decreased from 31.7% (13/41) before local registration to 4.9% (2/41) after.

Focusing on the two cases without target overlap, Dr. Bhadra noted that he was able to get a biopsy that proved a malignancy in one of those patients. In the other patient, Dr. Bhadra was able to identify features of organizing pneumonia.

“Even though we did not have overlap, we must have been close enough that we were able to get malignant tissue in one [patient] and features of organizing pneumonia in a patient who’s got no history of organizing pneumonia,” Dr. Bhadra said.

He and his colleagues did not evaluate diagnostic yield in this study, but they did assess complications up to 7 days after the procedure.

The team reported one case of pneumothorax, but the patient didn’t require a chest tube. Additionally, there were two cases of bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, but the patients didn’t require any interventions.

This study was sponsored by Medtronic. Dr. Bhadra disclosed relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, BodyVision, Auris Surgical Robotics, Intuitive Surgical, Veracyte, Biodesix, Merit Medical Endotek, and Johnson & Johnson.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bhadra K et al. CHEST 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.314.

CHICAGO – Current dosing recommendations for thyroid replacement during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may overshoot the mark, both for patients with preexisting and de novo hypothyroidism.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

The real-world data, presented by Megan Kristan, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association, refine recommendations for dosing by body weight for levothyroxine in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors stand a good chance of turning the tide against melanoma, some lung cancers, and other malignancies that have long been considered lethal. However, as more patients are exposed to the therapies, endocrinologists are seeing a wave of thyroid abnormalities, and must decide when, and at what doses, to treat hypothyroidism, said Dr. Kristan, a diabetes, endocrinology, and nutrition fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Six checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved to hit a variety of molecular targets, and the prevalence of thyroid toxicity and hypothyroidism across the drug class ranges from a reported 9% to 40%, said Dr. Kristan.

The acknowledged thyroid toxicity of these drugs led the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to issue guidelines advising that oncologists obtain baseline thyroid function tests before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, and that values be rechecked frequently – every 4-6 weeks – during therapy.

The guidelines advise dosing levothyroxine at approximately 1.6 mcg/kg per day, based on ideal patient body weight. The recommendation is limited to patients without risk factors, and approximates full levothyroxine replacement.

However, some patients enter cancer treatment with hypothyroidism, and some develop it de novo after beginning checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It is not known how best to treat each group, said Dr. Kristan.

To help answer that question, she and her collaborators at Georgetown University Hospital, McLean, Va., made use of a database drawn from five hospitals to perform a retrospective chart review. They looked at 822 patients who had received checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and from those patients, they selected 118 who had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, or who received a prescription for levothyroxine during the 8-year study period.

The investigators assembled all available relevant data for each patient, including thyroid function tests, levothyroxine dosing, type of cancer, and type of therapy. They sorted participants into those who had received a diagnosis of hypothyroidism before or after receiving the first dose of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

At baseline, 81 patients had preexisting hypothyroidism and were receiving a mean levothyroxine dose of 88.2 mcg. After treatment, the mean dose was 94.3 mcg, a nonsignificant difference. The median dose for this group remained at 88 mcg through treatment.

For the 37 patients who developed hypothyroidism de novo during checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the final observed levothyroxine dose was 71.2 mcg.

The mean age of the patients at baseline was 69 years. About half were women, and 91% were white. Either nivolumab or pembrolizumab was used in 72% of patients, making them the most commonly used checkpoint inhibitors, though 90% of patients received combination therapy. Taken together, melanoma and lung cancer accounted for about two-thirds of the cancers seen.

For both groups, the on-treatment levothyroxine dose was considerably lower than the ASCO-recommended, weight-based dosing, which would have been 122.9 mcg for those with preexisting hypothyroidism and 115.7 mcg for those who developed hypothyroidism on treatment (P less than .001 for both).

Dr. Kristan noted that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values for patients with pretreatment hypothyroidism peaked between weeks 12 and 20, though there was no preemptive adjustment of levothyroxine dosing.

For those who developed on-treatment hypothyroidism, TSH values peaked at a series of times, at about weeks 8, 16, and 32. These waves of TSH elevation, she said, support the 4- to 6-week follow-up interval recommended in the ASCO guidelines.

However, she said, patients with de novo hypothyroidism “should not be started on the 1.6-mcg/kg-a-day weight-based dosing.” The cohort with de novo hypothyroidism in Dr. Kristan’s analysis required a daily dose of about 1 mcg/kg, she said. These real-world results support the idea that many patients on checkpoint inhibitors retain some thyroid reserve.

Dr. Kristan said that based on these findings, she and her collaborators recommend monitoring thyroid function every 4-6 weeks for patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients with preexisting thyroid disease should not have an empiric adjustment of levothyroxine dose on checkpoint inhibitor initiation. For patients who develop thyroiditis after starting therapy, initiating a dose at 1 mcg/kg per day of ideal body weight is a good place to start, and treatment response should be monitored.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size, acknowledged Dr. Kristan. In addition, there were confounding variables and different frequencies of testing across institutions, and antibody status was not available and may have affected the results. Testing was performable for all participants.

Dr. Kristan said that the analysis opens up areas for further study, such as which patient populations are at risk for developing thyroid toxicity, what baseline characteristics can help predict which patients develop toxicity, and whether particular checkpoint inhibitors are more likely to cause toxicity. In addition, she said, a subset of patients will develop hyperthyroidism on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and little is known about how to treat that complication.

Dr. Kristan reported no conflicts of interest. The research she presented was completed during her residency at Georgetown University.
 

SOURCE: Kristan M et al. ATA 2019, Oral Abstract 25.

CHICAGO – Current dosing recommendations for thyroid replacement during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may overshoot the mark, both for patients with preexisting and de novo hypothyroidism.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

The real-world data, presented by Megan Kristan, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association, refine recommendations for dosing by body weight for levothyroxine in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors stand a good chance of turning the tide against melanoma, some lung cancers, and other malignancies that have long been considered lethal. However, as more patients are exposed to the therapies, endocrinologists are seeing a wave of thyroid abnormalities, and must decide when, and at what doses, to treat hypothyroidism, said Dr. Kristan, a diabetes, endocrinology, and nutrition fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Six checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved to hit a variety of molecular targets, and the prevalence of thyroid toxicity and hypothyroidism across the drug class ranges from a reported 9% to 40%, said Dr. Kristan.

The acknowledged thyroid toxicity of these drugs led the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to issue guidelines advising that oncologists obtain baseline thyroid function tests before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, and that values be rechecked frequently – every 4-6 weeks – during therapy.

The guidelines advise dosing levothyroxine at approximately 1.6 mcg/kg per day, based on ideal patient body weight. The recommendation is limited to patients without risk factors, and approximates full levothyroxine replacement.

However, some patients enter cancer treatment with hypothyroidism, and some develop it de novo after beginning checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It is not known how best to treat each group, said Dr. Kristan.

To help answer that question, she and her collaborators at Georgetown University Hospital, McLean, Va., made use of a database drawn from five hospitals to perform a retrospective chart review. They looked at 822 patients who had received checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and from those patients, they selected 118 who had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, or who received a prescription for levothyroxine during the 8-year study period.

The investigators assembled all available relevant data for each patient, including thyroid function tests, levothyroxine dosing, type of cancer, and type of therapy. They sorted participants into those who had received a diagnosis of hypothyroidism before or after receiving the first dose of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

At baseline, 81 patients had preexisting hypothyroidism and were receiving a mean levothyroxine dose of 88.2 mcg. After treatment, the mean dose was 94.3 mcg, a nonsignificant difference. The median dose for this group remained at 88 mcg through treatment.

For the 37 patients who developed hypothyroidism de novo during checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the final observed levothyroxine dose was 71.2 mcg.

The mean age of the patients at baseline was 69 years. About half were women, and 91% were white. Either nivolumab or pembrolizumab was used in 72% of patients, making them the most commonly used checkpoint inhibitors, though 90% of patients received combination therapy. Taken together, melanoma and lung cancer accounted for about two-thirds of the cancers seen.

For both groups, the on-treatment levothyroxine dose was considerably lower than the ASCO-recommended, weight-based dosing, which would have been 122.9 mcg for those with preexisting hypothyroidism and 115.7 mcg for those who developed hypothyroidism on treatment (P less than .001 for both).

Dr. Kristan noted that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values for patients with pretreatment hypothyroidism peaked between weeks 12 and 20, though there was no preemptive adjustment of levothyroxine dosing.

For those who developed on-treatment hypothyroidism, TSH values peaked at a series of times, at about weeks 8, 16, and 32. These waves of TSH elevation, she said, support the 4- to 6-week follow-up interval recommended in the ASCO guidelines.

However, she said, patients with de novo hypothyroidism “should not be started on the 1.6-mcg/kg-a-day weight-based dosing.” The cohort with de novo hypothyroidism in Dr. Kristan’s analysis required a daily dose of about 1 mcg/kg, she said. These real-world results support the idea that many patients on checkpoint inhibitors retain some thyroid reserve.

Dr. Kristan said that based on these findings, she and her collaborators recommend monitoring thyroid function every 4-6 weeks for patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients with preexisting thyroid disease should not have an empiric adjustment of levothyroxine dose on checkpoint inhibitor initiation. For patients who develop thyroiditis after starting therapy, initiating a dose at 1 mcg/kg per day of ideal body weight is a good place to start, and treatment response should be monitored.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size, acknowledged Dr. Kristan. In addition, there were confounding variables and different frequencies of testing across institutions, and antibody status was not available and may have affected the results. Testing was performable for all participants.

Dr. Kristan said that the analysis opens up areas for further study, such as which patient populations are at risk for developing thyroid toxicity, what baseline characteristics can help predict which patients develop toxicity, and whether particular checkpoint inhibitors are more likely to cause toxicity. In addition, she said, a subset of patients will develop hyperthyroidism on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and little is known about how to treat that complication.

Dr. Kristan reported no conflicts of interest. The research she presented was completed during her residency at Georgetown University.
 

SOURCE: Kristan M et al. ATA 2019, Oral Abstract 25.

CHICAGO – Current dosing recommendations for thyroid replacement during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy may overshoot the mark, both for patients with preexisting and de novo hypothyroidism.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

The real-world data, presented by Megan Kristan, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association, refine recommendations for dosing by body weight for levothyroxine in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors stand a good chance of turning the tide against melanoma, some lung cancers, and other malignancies that have long been considered lethal. However, as more patients are exposed to the therapies, endocrinologists are seeing a wave of thyroid abnormalities, and must decide when, and at what doses, to treat hypothyroidism, said Dr. Kristan, a diabetes, endocrinology, and nutrition fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Six checkpoint inhibitors are currently approved to hit a variety of molecular targets, and the prevalence of thyroid toxicity and hypothyroidism across the drug class ranges from a reported 9% to 40%, said Dr. Kristan.

The acknowledged thyroid toxicity of these drugs led the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to issue guidelines advising that oncologists obtain baseline thyroid function tests before initiating checkpoint inhibitors, and that values be rechecked frequently – every 4-6 weeks – during therapy.

The guidelines advise dosing levothyroxine at approximately 1.6 mcg/kg per day, based on ideal patient body weight. The recommendation is limited to patients without risk factors, and approximates full levothyroxine replacement.

However, some patients enter cancer treatment with hypothyroidism, and some develop it de novo after beginning checkpoint inhibitor therapy. It is not known how best to treat each group, said Dr. Kristan.

To help answer that question, she and her collaborators at Georgetown University Hospital, McLean, Va., made use of a database drawn from five hospitals to perform a retrospective chart review. They looked at 822 patients who had received checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and from those patients, they selected 118 who had a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, or who received a prescription for levothyroxine during the 8-year study period.

The investigators assembled all available relevant data for each patient, including thyroid function tests, levothyroxine dosing, type of cancer, and type of therapy. They sorted participants into those who had received a diagnosis of hypothyroidism before or after receiving the first dose of checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

At baseline, 81 patients had preexisting hypothyroidism and were receiving a mean levothyroxine dose of 88.2 mcg. After treatment, the mean dose was 94.3 mcg, a nonsignificant difference. The median dose for this group remained at 88 mcg through treatment.

For the 37 patients who developed hypothyroidism de novo during checkpoint inhibitor therapy, the final observed levothyroxine dose was 71.2 mcg.

The mean age of the patients at baseline was 69 years. About half were women, and 91% were white. Either nivolumab or pembrolizumab was used in 72% of patients, making them the most commonly used checkpoint inhibitors, though 90% of patients received combination therapy. Taken together, melanoma and lung cancer accounted for about two-thirds of the cancers seen.

For both groups, the on-treatment levothyroxine dose was considerably lower than the ASCO-recommended, weight-based dosing, which would have been 122.9 mcg for those with preexisting hypothyroidism and 115.7 mcg for those who developed hypothyroidism on treatment (P less than .001 for both).

Dr. Kristan noted that thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values for patients with pretreatment hypothyroidism peaked between weeks 12 and 20, though there was no preemptive adjustment of levothyroxine dosing.

For those who developed on-treatment hypothyroidism, TSH values peaked at a series of times, at about weeks 8, 16, and 32. These waves of TSH elevation, she said, support the 4- to 6-week follow-up interval recommended in the ASCO guidelines.

However, she said, patients with de novo hypothyroidism “should not be started on the 1.6-mcg/kg-a-day weight-based dosing.” The cohort with de novo hypothyroidism in Dr. Kristan’s analysis required a daily dose of about 1 mcg/kg, she said. These real-world results support the idea that many patients on checkpoint inhibitors retain some thyroid reserve.

Dr. Kristan said that based on these findings, she and her collaborators recommend monitoring thyroid function every 4-6 weeks for patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients with preexisting thyroid disease should not have an empiric adjustment of levothyroxine dose on checkpoint inhibitor initiation. For patients who develop thyroiditis after starting therapy, initiating a dose at 1 mcg/kg per day of ideal body weight is a good place to start, and treatment response should be monitored.

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size, acknowledged Dr. Kristan. In addition, there were confounding variables and different frequencies of testing across institutions, and antibody status was not available and may have affected the results. Testing was performable for all participants.

Dr. Kristan said that the analysis opens up areas for further study, such as which patient populations are at risk for developing thyroid toxicity, what baseline characteristics can help predict which patients develop toxicity, and whether particular checkpoint inhibitors are more likely to cause toxicity. In addition, she said, a subset of patients will develop hyperthyroidism on checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and little is known about how to treat that complication.

Dr. Kristan reported no conflicts of interest. The research she presented was completed during her residency at Georgetown University.
 

SOURCE: Kristan M et al. ATA 2019, Oral Abstract 25.

BARCELONA – Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate activity in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but achieving more durable disease control and better survival requires improved understanding of biomarkers and the immune microenvironment.

That was the overarching message from experts speaking at a minisymposium on immunotherapy in SCLC at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“None of us are disputing that immunotherapy is clearly active in this space, but I think that we can all agree that the outcomes have been somewhat modest in an unselected population, and there is certainly room to grow,” said Dr. Stephen V. Liu, MD. “Moving forward, while we will look for any advances we can, we also feel strongly that these incremental gains are probably not enough.”
 

The state of the art

Hints that immunotherapy could be clinically efficacious in SCLC emerged in 2016 when interim findings from the CheckMate 032 study showed that the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, either alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab, had efficacy in recurrent SCLC. Efficacy was seen regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, which is “a good thing since PD-L1 is expressed much less frequently in SCLC than in non-SCLC,” Scott J. Antonia, MD, of Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., who was the first author on that study, said during the symposium.

A particularly encouraging finding was that responders included patients with platinum-refractory SCLC for whom treatments in the relapse setting are lacking, Dr Antonia said.

An exploratory analysis of CheckMate 032 also showed better responses among patients in the highest tumor mutation burden (TMB) tertile, especially in the combination therapy group, leading to the hypothesis-generating finding that TMB may predict response, he said.

Another suggestion of nivolumab’s potential came from the randomized CheckMate 331 study comparing the checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC patients. As reported in 2018 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), no overall survival (OS) benefit was apparent at 12 months (37% vs. 34%), but a separation of the curves at 36 months suggested a possible OS benefit with nivolumab, Dr. Antonia noted, adding that the difference was “obviously small” and requires “a lot more work related to that.”

Subgroup analyses in that study also were “perhaps revealing” in that patients without liver metastases derived benefit (hazard ratio, 0.75), as did those who were platinum resistant (HR, 0.71), he said.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study showed that the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab also has activity in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients in the relapsed setting, and pooled data from that study and KEYNOTE-158, which included both PD-L1–positive and –negative patients, showed promising antitumor activity and durable responses with pembrolizumab. The pooled data, as presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 19%, including complete and partial response rates of 2% and 17%, respectively.

“And there appears to be, at least preliminarily, some durability to the responses,” he said, noting that 9 of 16 patients experienced at least an 18-month response. “Progression-free survival was 2 months, and overall survival was 7.7 months.”

The IMpower133 study showed significantly longer OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (HR, 0.70). Some late merging of the survival curves was apparent, but the data haven’t matured.

“Hopefully there will be some evidence of a lifting of the tail of the survival curve with some durability of responsiveness like we see in non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

When it comes to “making the next leap” toward improved clinical efficacy with immunotherapy for SCLC, “we need to think about three general categories of how it is that tumors evade rejection by the immune system,” he said.

One category involves SCLC patients with an insufficient numbers of T cells generated within the lymphoid compartment; in those patients, an immunotherapeutic approach directed at the tumor microenvironment won’t lead to a response. Another category includes patients who generate enough T cells within the lymphoid compartment but in whom those cells aren’t driven into the tumor parenchyma. The third involves those whose T cells may make it into the tumor parenchyma, but are inhibited in the tumor microenvironment, he explained.

Strategies to increase the number of T cells generated in the lymphoid compartment – such as vaccines, radiation, adoptive cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors, to name a few – were a focus of research efforts more than a decade ago, but the pendulum swung more toward addressing the tumor microenvironment.

“I think that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, and we do need to develop combination immunotherapies paying attention to the lymphoid compartment as well as the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Antonia said, listing these “guiding principles” for the development of effective SCLC immunotherapy:

• Combination immunotherapy is necessary.
• Mechanisms exploited by SCLC to evade immune-mediated rejection need to be identified.
• Inclusion of strategies for driving tumor-reactive T cells into the tumor microenvironment should be considered.
• PD-1 blockade should continue.
• Biomarkers should be identified for selecting patients for tumor microenvironment–targeted agents.

Clinical and molecular biomarkers

Indeed, there is much work to do with respect to biomarkers, but their use in the selection of SCLC patients for immunotherapy is “finally starting to evolve and evolve more rapidly,” according to Lauren Averett Byers, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Numerous groups are identifying biomarkers for both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, Dr. Byers said, noting that “this has been a really incredible time for those of us who take care of small cell lung cancer patients.”

“It’s been many decades since we’ve had a new option for our patients ... and so I think with the landmark clinical trials ... we really do have a new option in terms of a new standard of care,” she said of immunotherapy. “But I think we also recognize that there is significant room for further improvement.”

Many patients don’t respond or don’t respond as well as hoped, and therefore an “incredible need” exists for personalized biomarker-driven therapy for SCLC and its distinct molecular subsets, she said.

Emerging and potential biomarkers and other factors to guide treatment decisions include TMB, PD-L1, clinical history/duration of response in immunotherapy-naive relapsed patients, gene expression profile–driven SCLC subgroup identification, and DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors such as Chk1, PARP, and Wee1 inhibitors.

TMB, as described by Dr. Antonia with respect to the CheckMate 032 findings of improved outcomes in those in the highest TMB tertile, is one potentially helpful biomarker for response.

“In thinking about how we apply this, though, we have to think about what we’re deciding between,” Dr. Byers said, explaining that the responses in patients with medium or low TMB – between 0% and 10% in most studies in the relapsed SCLC setting – aren’t that different from those seen with other treatment options.

“Currently we’re not routinely ordering TMB to decide on immunotherapy because there are still patients that can be as likely to benefit from immunotherapy as they are from chemotherapy, and potentially with more durable responses,” she said. “But certainly, it is a way to potentially identify patients where immunotherapy alone may have very high rates of response.”

IMPower133 showed no difference in hazard ratios for death based on TMB detected in the blood in SCLC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, but “this still supports using the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination broadly, and also emphasizes the need for an improved – and probably expanded – look at other biomarkers that may help predict response,” she said.

PD-L1 appears to have a role as a biomarker in this setting as well, she said, citing the KEYNOTE-028 findings of numerically improved responses in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab.

“We should be looking at PD-L1 levels, but we need further information to know how we might use this,” she said.

In immunotherapy-naive patients who relapse after front-line chemotherapy, the most important biomarker is clinical history and duration of response to platinum, which helps guide second-line treatment, Dr. Byers said.

“I think there’s consensus among most of us that patients who have platinum-refractory disease and are unlikely to respond to further platinum therapy or other chemotherapy agents are patients who really should get immunotherapy,” she added, explaining that the available data suggest there is no cross-resistance and that there may actually be enhanced benefit with immunotherapy in such patients.

Using molecular data to identify SCLC subtypes based on gene expression profiles is another area of interest, she said.

In fact, new data presented at the WCLC conference by Carl Gay, MD, PhD, a former fellow in her lab and now a junior faculty member at MD Anderson, identified four specific SCLC subgroups; three were driven by activation of the known transcription factors ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, but an additional “inflamed” group without expression of those three transcription factors was also identified.

That “triple-negative” group had significantly higher expression of human leukocyte antigen and very high T-cell activation with expression of multiple immune checkpoints representing candidate targets, she said, adding: “We hypothesize that this group may be the group in SCLC that gets relatively greater benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.”

DDR is also garnering attention.

“Since there was this signal that [patients with] DNA damage ... tend to be more sensitive to immunotherapy ... we looked at whether or not targeted agents that prevented repair of DNA damage and induced increased levels of DNA damage ... might activate the innate immune system through the STING pathway and if that could be a potential approach to enhance immunotherapy response,” she said.

The approach showed promise in cell lines in a mouse model and also in an immunocompetent SCLC mouse model.

“It was really interesting to see how these drugs might potentially enhance response to immunotherapy,” Dr. Byers said, noting that the same phenomenon has been seen with PARP inhibitors in breast and colon cancer models and in other solid tumors.

“So I think that there is something there, and fortunately we’re now at a point now where we can start looking at some of these combinations in the clinic across many different cancer types,” she said. “I think we’ll be learning a lot more about what’s happening with these patients.”

At present, however, “there is more that we don’t know about the immune landscape of small cell lung cancer than what we do know, and that’s a real opportunity where, over the next several years, we will gain a deeper understanding ... that will direct where we’re going in terms of translating that back into the clinic.”
 

The SCLC immune microenvironment

The immune microenvironment will be an integral part of that journey, according to Dr. Liu.

“We consider small cell lung cancer – a carcinogen-associated cancer – to be one that has a high somatic mutation rate, but what we’ve learned over the past few years is that tumor neoantigens are certainly necessary – but not sufficient,” he said, noting that mutational burden represents the potential for immune-mediated antitumor responses, but is not a guarantee.

“As a group, we need to develop strategies to overcome the powerful immunosuppressive microenvironment in small cell lung cancer,” he added.

Lessons learned from studying PD-L1 provided the first insight into the importance of the immune microenvironment: PD-L1 expression, as measured by tumor proportion score (TPS) holds predictive value in non–small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, but the SCLC story is much more complex, he said.

Only 18% of SCLC patients in CheckMate 032 were PD-L1–positive, and “paradoxically, we see responses were better in the PD-L1–negative group,” he explained. The response rates for nivolumab/ipilimumab were 32% in the PD-L1–negative group and 10% in the PD-L1–positive group.

Recent findings regarding the use of the combined positive score (CPS), which unlike the TPS for determining PD-L1 status, includes PD-L1 expression on stromal cells, are also notable. In a phase 2 study of maintenance pembrolizumab in SCLC, for example, 3 of 30 patients were PD-L1 positive by TPS, and 8 of 20 were positive by CPS.

“And that did predict outcomes: We see a higher response rate [38% vs. 8%], better PFS [6.5 vs. 1.3 months], and better overall survival [13 months vs. 8 months] in pretreated small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Similarly, in KEYNOTE-158 when looking at pembrolizumab in previously treated SCLC, the overall response was modest at 18.7%, and median PFS was 2.0 months.

“Again, breaking it down by CPS, we see a different story,” Dr. Liu said. “We see better outcomes in the PD-L1–positive [group] if you’re factoring in expression in the microenvironment.” When assessed by CPS, 39% of patients were PD-L1 positive; those patients, when compared with PD-L1–negative patients, had improved 12-month PFS (28.5% vs. 8.2%, respectively), 12-month OS (53.3% vs. 30.7%), and median OS (14.9 vs. 5.9 months).

Checkpoint expression in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) also has been shown to vary when compared with tumor expression. SCLC tissue microarrays in a study presented at ASCO 2017 (Rivalland et al. Abstract 8569), for example, showed that tumor expression versus TIL expression of PD-L1, TIMS3, and LAG3 was 18% vs. 67%, 0% vs. 59%, and 0% vs. 45%, respectively, and the TIL expression correlated with survival, Dr. Liu said.

“So when we consider things like PD-L1 expression, looking at a narrow scope of just the tumor is not enough. We need to consider the stromal cells, the microenvironment,” he said. “And even larger than that, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is but a fraction of powerful, dynamic, immunosuppressive factors in small cell lung cancer.

“All of these will need to be accounted for in various patients.”

These findings and others, like those from a recent study showing differentially expressed genes and pathways in the stromal cells of longer- versus shorter-term survivors, raise questions about whether the lymphoid compartment can be manipulated in SCLC to improve immune responses using the strategies discussed by Dr. Antonia and Dr. Byers, he said.

In “cold” tumor phenotypes, one hypothesis has tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) preventing infiltration of the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which raises the possibility that TAMs are a therapeutic target, he said.

“At this meeting and others we’ve heard of lurbinectedin as a possible active drug in SCLC,” he said, noting that preclinical data also demonstrate that lurbinectedin targets TAMs. Perhaps the agent’s future role will be that of an immune modulator rather than a cytotoxic agent, he suggested.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are another potential immunomodulatory target, but the problem is their redundancy and the lack of good models to identify which ones are active, he said.

“Myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSC] are another important part of the microenvironment and could be potential targets to restore immune responses,” he added.

But many questions remain, he said.

For example: How can we overcome an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment? Can we inhibit arginine or adenosine? Can we restore interleukin-2? Can we target things like LAG3? Can we eliminate the Treg and MDSC population? Which strategies are appropriate? Are they the same in immunotherapy-naive vs. immunotherapy-experienced patients – is intrinsic resistance the same as acquired resistance? Are they the same in each patient, or even throughout each tumor?

And importantly, “how will we choose between these various molecules we have?” he asked.

“At this point we’ve learned that empiric strategies are unlikely to yield meaningful results. We’ve been through empiric strategies in SCLC for years, and it doesn’t work because of that heterogeneity – unless there’s a universal underlying mechanism,” he said. “I think more than likely the studies have to be enriched for the right patients; we need to apply everything we’ve learned from non–small cell lung cancer and apply the principles of targeted therapy to immunotherapy – and that requires the identification of predictive biomarkers.”

It’s a challenging task in SCLC, but “it still needs to be done,” he said, noting that the lack of “perfect models” means relying on cell lines in surgical specimens.

However, while surgical tissue banks are an important resource, there is doubt about whether the specimens are representative of patients in the clinic, he noted.

“At best need to confirm what we know; at worst we may need to rework a lot of the underlying maps,” he said.

Therefore, future SCLC studies “are simply going to need more biopsies,” and that is yet another challenge, he added, explaining that the largely central tumors and fairly aggressive, rapid course of disease in SCLC make it difficult to obtain meaningful biopsies.

“But it’s the only way to move forward,” he said. “As a community we have to stand up and obtain more biopsies and tissue for in-depth analysis.”

As much as that will advance the field, the greatest impact for SCLC will be through prevention, including by smoking cessation, he added.

“Our overarching goal for small cell lung cancer remains achieving durable disease control and long-term survival for our patients,” Dr. Liu said. “That certainly is a lofty goal, but those are probably the only goals worth having.”

Dr. Liu, Dr. Byers, and Dr. Antonia reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.




 

BARCELONA – Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate activity in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but achieving more durable disease control and better survival requires improved understanding of biomarkers and the immune microenvironment.

That was the overarching message from experts speaking at a minisymposium on immunotherapy in SCLC at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“None of us are disputing that immunotherapy is clearly active in this space, but I think that we can all agree that the outcomes have been somewhat modest in an unselected population, and there is certainly room to grow,” said Dr. Stephen V. Liu, MD. “Moving forward, while we will look for any advances we can, we also feel strongly that these incremental gains are probably not enough.”
 

The state of the art

Hints that immunotherapy could be clinically efficacious in SCLC emerged in 2016 when interim findings from the CheckMate 032 study showed that the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, either alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab, had efficacy in recurrent SCLC. Efficacy was seen regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, which is “a good thing since PD-L1 is expressed much less frequently in SCLC than in non-SCLC,” Scott J. Antonia, MD, of Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., who was the first author on that study, said during the symposium.

A particularly encouraging finding was that responders included patients with platinum-refractory SCLC for whom treatments in the relapse setting are lacking, Dr Antonia said.

An exploratory analysis of CheckMate 032 also showed better responses among patients in the highest tumor mutation burden (TMB) tertile, especially in the combination therapy group, leading to the hypothesis-generating finding that TMB may predict response, he said.

Another suggestion of nivolumab’s potential came from the randomized CheckMate 331 study comparing the checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC patients. As reported in 2018 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), no overall survival (OS) benefit was apparent at 12 months (37% vs. 34%), but a separation of the curves at 36 months suggested a possible OS benefit with nivolumab, Dr. Antonia noted, adding that the difference was “obviously small” and requires “a lot more work related to that.”

Subgroup analyses in that study also were “perhaps revealing” in that patients without liver metastases derived benefit (hazard ratio, 0.75), as did those who were platinum resistant (HR, 0.71), he said.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study showed that the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab also has activity in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients in the relapsed setting, and pooled data from that study and KEYNOTE-158, which included both PD-L1–positive and –negative patients, showed promising antitumor activity and durable responses with pembrolizumab. The pooled data, as presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 19%, including complete and partial response rates of 2% and 17%, respectively.

“And there appears to be, at least preliminarily, some durability to the responses,” he said, noting that 9 of 16 patients experienced at least an 18-month response. “Progression-free survival was 2 months, and overall survival was 7.7 months.”

The IMpower133 study showed significantly longer OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (HR, 0.70). Some late merging of the survival curves was apparent, but the data haven’t matured.

“Hopefully there will be some evidence of a lifting of the tail of the survival curve with some durability of responsiveness like we see in non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

When it comes to “making the next leap” toward improved clinical efficacy with immunotherapy for SCLC, “we need to think about three general categories of how it is that tumors evade rejection by the immune system,” he said.

One category involves SCLC patients with an insufficient numbers of T cells generated within the lymphoid compartment; in those patients, an immunotherapeutic approach directed at the tumor microenvironment won’t lead to a response. Another category includes patients who generate enough T cells within the lymphoid compartment but in whom those cells aren’t driven into the tumor parenchyma. The third involves those whose T cells may make it into the tumor parenchyma, but are inhibited in the tumor microenvironment, he explained.

Strategies to increase the number of T cells generated in the lymphoid compartment – such as vaccines, radiation, adoptive cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors, to name a few – were a focus of research efforts more than a decade ago, but the pendulum swung more toward addressing the tumor microenvironment.

“I think that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, and we do need to develop combination immunotherapies paying attention to the lymphoid compartment as well as the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Antonia said, listing these “guiding principles” for the development of effective SCLC immunotherapy:

• Combination immunotherapy is necessary.
• Mechanisms exploited by SCLC to evade immune-mediated rejection need to be identified.
• Inclusion of strategies for driving tumor-reactive T cells into the tumor microenvironment should be considered.
• PD-1 blockade should continue.
• Biomarkers should be identified for selecting patients for tumor microenvironment–targeted agents.

Clinical and molecular biomarkers

Indeed, there is much work to do with respect to biomarkers, but their use in the selection of SCLC patients for immunotherapy is “finally starting to evolve and evolve more rapidly,” according to Lauren Averett Byers, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Numerous groups are identifying biomarkers for both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, Dr. Byers said, noting that “this has been a really incredible time for those of us who take care of small cell lung cancer patients.”

“It’s been many decades since we’ve had a new option for our patients ... and so I think with the landmark clinical trials ... we really do have a new option in terms of a new standard of care,” she said of immunotherapy. “But I think we also recognize that there is significant room for further improvement.”

Many patients don’t respond or don’t respond as well as hoped, and therefore an “incredible need” exists for personalized biomarker-driven therapy for SCLC and its distinct molecular subsets, she said.

Emerging and potential biomarkers and other factors to guide treatment decisions include TMB, PD-L1, clinical history/duration of response in immunotherapy-naive relapsed patients, gene expression profile–driven SCLC subgroup identification, and DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors such as Chk1, PARP, and Wee1 inhibitors.

TMB, as described by Dr. Antonia with respect to the CheckMate 032 findings of improved outcomes in those in the highest TMB tertile, is one potentially helpful biomarker for response.

“In thinking about how we apply this, though, we have to think about what we’re deciding between,” Dr. Byers said, explaining that the responses in patients with medium or low TMB – between 0% and 10% in most studies in the relapsed SCLC setting – aren’t that different from those seen with other treatment options.

“Currently we’re not routinely ordering TMB to decide on immunotherapy because there are still patients that can be as likely to benefit from immunotherapy as they are from chemotherapy, and potentially with more durable responses,” she said. “But certainly, it is a way to potentially identify patients where immunotherapy alone may have very high rates of response.”

IMPower133 showed no difference in hazard ratios for death based on TMB detected in the blood in SCLC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, but “this still supports using the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination broadly, and also emphasizes the need for an improved – and probably expanded – look at other biomarkers that may help predict response,” she said.

PD-L1 appears to have a role as a biomarker in this setting as well, she said, citing the KEYNOTE-028 findings of numerically improved responses in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab.

“We should be looking at PD-L1 levels, but we need further information to know how we might use this,” she said.

In immunotherapy-naive patients who relapse after front-line chemotherapy, the most important biomarker is clinical history and duration of response to platinum, which helps guide second-line treatment, Dr. Byers said.

“I think there’s consensus among most of us that patients who have platinum-refractory disease and are unlikely to respond to further platinum therapy or other chemotherapy agents are patients who really should get immunotherapy,” she added, explaining that the available data suggest there is no cross-resistance and that there may actually be enhanced benefit with immunotherapy in such patients.

Using molecular data to identify SCLC subtypes based on gene expression profiles is another area of interest, she said.

In fact, new data presented at the WCLC conference by Carl Gay, MD, PhD, a former fellow in her lab and now a junior faculty member at MD Anderson, identified four specific SCLC subgroups; three were driven by activation of the known transcription factors ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, but an additional “inflamed” group without expression of those three transcription factors was also identified.

That “triple-negative” group had significantly higher expression of human leukocyte antigen and very high T-cell activation with expression of multiple immune checkpoints representing candidate targets, she said, adding: “We hypothesize that this group may be the group in SCLC that gets relatively greater benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.”

DDR is also garnering attention.

“Since there was this signal that [patients with] DNA damage ... tend to be more sensitive to immunotherapy ... we looked at whether or not targeted agents that prevented repair of DNA damage and induced increased levels of DNA damage ... might activate the innate immune system through the STING pathway and if that could be a potential approach to enhance immunotherapy response,” she said.

The approach showed promise in cell lines in a mouse model and also in an immunocompetent SCLC mouse model.

“It was really interesting to see how these drugs might potentially enhance response to immunotherapy,” Dr. Byers said, noting that the same phenomenon has been seen with PARP inhibitors in breast and colon cancer models and in other solid tumors.

“So I think that there is something there, and fortunately we’re now at a point now where we can start looking at some of these combinations in the clinic across many different cancer types,” she said. “I think we’ll be learning a lot more about what’s happening with these patients.”

At present, however, “there is more that we don’t know about the immune landscape of small cell lung cancer than what we do know, and that’s a real opportunity where, over the next several years, we will gain a deeper understanding ... that will direct where we’re going in terms of translating that back into the clinic.”
 

The SCLC immune microenvironment

The immune microenvironment will be an integral part of that journey, according to Dr. Liu.

“We consider small cell lung cancer – a carcinogen-associated cancer – to be one that has a high somatic mutation rate, but what we’ve learned over the past few years is that tumor neoantigens are certainly necessary – but not sufficient,” he said, noting that mutational burden represents the potential for immune-mediated antitumor responses, but is not a guarantee.

“As a group, we need to develop strategies to overcome the powerful immunosuppressive microenvironment in small cell lung cancer,” he added.

Lessons learned from studying PD-L1 provided the first insight into the importance of the immune microenvironment: PD-L1 expression, as measured by tumor proportion score (TPS) holds predictive value in non–small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, but the SCLC story is much more complex, he said.

Only 18% of SCLC patients in CheckMate 032 were PD-L1–positive, and “paradoxically, we see responses were better in the PD-L1–negative group,” he explained. The response rates for nivolumab/ipilimumab were 32% in the PD-L1–negative group and 10% in the PD-L1–positive group.

Recent findings regarding the use of the combined positive score (CPS), which unlike the TPS for determining PD-L1 status, includes PD-L1 expression on stromal cells, are also notable. In a phase 2 study of maintenance pembrolizumab in SCLC, for example, 3 of 30 patients were PD-L1 positive by TPS, and 8 of 20 were positive by CPS.

“And that did predict outcomes: We see a higher response rate [38% vs. 8%], better PFS [6.5 vs. 1.3 months], and better overall survival [13 months vs. 8 months] in pretreated small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Similarly, in KEYNOTE-158 when looking at pembrolizumab in previously treated SCLC, the overall response was modest at 18.7%, and median PFS was 2.0 months.

“Again, breaking it down by CPS, we see a different story,” Dr. Liu said. “We see better outcomes in the PD-L1–positive [group] if you’re factoring in expression in the microenvironment.” When assessed by CPS, 39% of patients were PD-L1 positive; those patients, when compared with PD-L1–negative patients, had improved 12-month PFS (28.5% vs. 8.2%, respectively), 12-month OS (53.3% vs. 30.7%), and median OS (14.9 vs. 5.9 months).

Checkpoint expression in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) also has been shown to vary when compared with tumor expression. SCLC tissue microarrays in a study presented at ASCO 2017 (Rivalland et al. Abstract 8569), for example, showed that tumor expression versus TIL expression of PD-L1, TIMS3, and LAG3 was 18% vs. 67%, 0% vs. 59%, and 0% vs. 45%, respectively, and the TIL expression correlated with survival, Dr. Liu said.

“So when we consider things like PD-L1 expression, looking at a narrow scope of just the tumor is not enough. We need to consider the stromal cells, the microenvironment,” he said. “And even larger than that, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is but a fraction of powerful, dynamic, immunosuppressive factors in small cell lung cancer.

“All of these will need to be accounted for in various patients.”

These findings and others, like those from a recent study showing differentially expressed genes and pathways in the stromal cells of longer- versus shorter-term survivors, raise questions about whether the lymphoid compartment can be manipulated in SCLC to improve immune responses using the strategies discussed by Dr. Antonia and Dr. Byers, he said.

In “cold” tumor phenotypes, one hypothesis has tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) preventing infiltration of the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which raises the possibility that TAMs are a therapeutic target, he said.

“At this meeting and others we’ve heard of lurbinectedin as a possible active drug in SCLC,” he said, noting that preclinical data also demonstrate that lurbinectedin targets TAMs. Perhaps the agent’s future role will be that of an immune modulator rather than a cytotoxic agent, he suggested.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are another potential immunomodulatory target, but the problem is their redundancy and the lack of good models to identify which ones are active, he said.

“Myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSC] are another important part of the microenvironment and could be potential targets to restore immune responses,” he added.

But many questions remain, he said.

For example: How can we overcome an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment? Can we inhibit arginine or adenosine? Can we restore interleukin-2? Can we target things like LAG3? Can we eliminate the Treg and MDSC population? Which strategies are appropriate? Are they the same in immunotherapy-naive vs. immunotherapy-experienced patients – is intrinsic resistance the same as acquired resistance? Are they the same in each patient, or even throughout each tumor?

And importantly, “how will we choose between these various molecules we have?” he asked.

“At this point we’ve learned that empiric strategies are unlikely to yield meaningful results. We’ve been through empiric strategies in SCLC for years, and it doesn’t work because of that heterogeneity – unless there’s a universal underlying mechanism,” he said. “I think more than likely the studies have to be enriched for the right patients; we need to apply everything we’ve learned from non–small cell lung cancer and apply the principles of targeted therapy to immunotherapy – and that requires the identification of predictive biomarkers.”

It’s a challenging task in SCLC, but “it still needs to be done,” he said, noting that the lack of “perfect models” means relying on cell lines in surgical specimens.

However, while surgical tissue banks are an important resource, there is doubt about whether the specimens are representative of patients in the clinic, he noted.

“At best need to confirm what we know; at worst we may need to rework a lot of the underlying maps,” he said.

Therefore, future SCLC studies “are simply going to need more biopsies,” and that is yet another challenge, he added, explaining that the largely central tumors and fairly aggressive, rapid course of disease in SCLC make it difficult to obtain meaningful biopsies.

“But it’s the only way to move forward,” he said. “As a community we have to stand up and obtain more biopsies and tissue for in-depth analysis.”

As much as that will advance the field, the greatest impact for SCLC will be through prevention, including by smoking cessation, he added.

“Our overarching goal for small cell lung cancer remains achieving durable disease control and long-term survival for our patients,” Dr. Liu said. “That certainly is a lofty goal, but those are probably the only goals worth having.”

Dr. Liu, Dr. Byers, and Dr. Antonia reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.




 

BARCELONA – Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate activity in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but achieving more durable disease control and better survival requires improved understanding of biomarkers and the immune microenvironment.

That was the overarching message from experts speaking at a minisymposium on immunotherapy in SCLC at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“None of us are disputing that immunotherapy is clearly active in this space, but I think that we can all agree that the outcomes have been somewhat modest in an unselected population, and there is certainly room to grow,” said Dr. Stephen V. Liu, MD. “Moving forward, while we will look for any advances we can, we also feel strongly that these incremental gains are probably not enough.”
 

The state of the art

Hints that immunotherapy could be clinically efficacious in SCLC emerged in 2016 when interim findings from the CheckMate 032 study showed that the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, either alone or in combination with the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab, had efficacy in recurrent SCLC. Efficacy was seen regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, which is “a good thing since PD-L1 is expressed much less frequently in SCLC than in non-SCLC,” Scott J. Antonia, MD, of Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, N.C., who was the first author on that study, said during the symposium.

A particularly encouraging finding was that responders included patients with platinum-refractory SCLC for whom treatments in the relapse setting are lacking, Dr Antonia said.

An exploratory analysis of CheckMate 032 also showed better responses among patients in the highest tumor mutation burden (TMB) tertile, especially in the combination therapy group, leading to the hypothesis-generating finding that TMB may predict response, he said.

Another suggestion of nivolumab’s potential came from the randomized CheckMate 331 study comparing the checkpoint inhibitor with chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC patients. As reported in 2018 at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), no overall survival (OS) benefit was apparent at 12 months (37% vs. 34%), but a separation of the curves at 36 months suggested a possible OS benefit with nivolumab, Dr. Antonia noted, adding that the difference was “obviously small” and requires “a lot more work related to that.”

Subgroup analyses in that study also were “perhaps revealing” in that patients without liver metastases derived benefit (hazard ratio, 0.75), as did those who were platinum resistant (HR, 0.71), he said.

The phase 1b KEYNOTE-028 study showed that the anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab also has activity in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients in the relapsed setting, and pooled data from that study and KEYNOTE-158, which included both PD-L1–positive and –negative patients, showed promising antitumor activity and durable responses with pembrolizumab. The pooled data, as presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 19%, including complete and partial response rates of 2% and 17%, respectively.

“And there appears to be, at least preliminarily, some durability to the responses,” he said, noting that 9 of 16 patients experienced at least an 18-month response. “Progression-free survival was 2 months, and overall survival was 7.7 months.”

The IMpower133 study showed significantly longer OS and progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (HR, 0.70). Some late merging of the survival curves was apparent, but the data haven’t matured.

“Hopefully there will be some evidence of a lifting of the tail of the survival curve with some durability of responsiveness like we see in non–small cell lung cancer,” he said.

When it comes to “making the next leap” toward improved clinical efficacy with immunotherapy for SCLC, “we need to think about three general categories of how it is that tumors evade rejection by the immune system,” he said.

One category involves SCLC patients with an insufficient numbers of T cells generated within the lymphoid compartment; in those patients, an immunotherapeutic approach directed at the tumor microenvironment won’t lead to a response. Another category includes patients who generate enough T cells within the lymphoid compartment but in whom those cells aren’t driven into the tumor parenchyma. The third involves those whose T cells may make it into the tumor parenchyma, but are inhibited in the tumor microenvironment, he explained.

Strategies to increase the number of T cells generated in the lymphoid compartment – such as vaccines, radiation, adoptive cell therapy with chimeric antigen receptors, to name a few – were a focus of research efforts more than a decade ago, but the pendulum swung more toward addressing the tumor microenvironment.

“I think that the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle, and we do need to develop combination immunotherapies paying attention to the lymphoid compartment as well as the tumor microenvironment,” Dr. Antonia said, listing these “guiding principles” for the development of effective SCLC immunotherapy:

• Combination immunotherapy is necessary.
• Mechanisms exploited by SCLC to evade immune-mediated rejection need to be identified.
• Inclusion of strategies for driving tumor-reactive T cells into the tumor microenvironment should be considered.
• PD-1 blockade should continue.
• Biomarkers should be identified for selecting patients for tumor microenvironment–targeted agents.

Clinical and molecular biomarkers

Indeed, there is much work to do with respect to biomarkers, but their use in the selection of SCLC patients for immunotherapy is “finally starting to evolve and evolve more rapidly,” according to Lauren Averett Byers, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Numerous groups are identifying biomarkers for both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, Dr. Byers said, noting that “this has been a really incredible time for those of us who take care of small cell lung cancer patients.”

“It’s been many decades since we’ve had a new option for our patients ... and so I think with the landmark clinical trials ... we really do have a new option in terms of a new standard of care,” she said of immunotherapy. “But I think we also recognize that there is significant room for further improvement.”

Many patients don’t respond or don’t respond as well as hoped, and therefore an “incredible need” exists for personalized biomarker-driven therapy for SCLC and its distinct molecular subsets, she said.

Emerging and potential biomarkers and other factors to guide treatment decisions include TMB, PD-L1, clinical history/duration of response in immunotherapy-naive relapsed patients, gene expression profile–driven SCLC subgroup identification, and DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors such as Chk1, PARP, and Wee1 inhibitors.

TMB, as described by Dr. Antonia with respect to the CheckMate 032 findings of improved outcomes in those in the highest TMB tertile, is one potentially helpful biomarker for response.

“In thinking about how we apply this, though, we have to think about what we’re deciding between,” Dr. Byers said, explaining that the responses in patients with medium or low TMB – between 0% and 10% in most studies in the relapsed SCLC setting – aren’t that different from those seen with other treatment options.

“Currently we’re not routinely ordering TMB to decide on immunotherapy because there are still patients that can be as likely to benefit from immunotherapy as they are from chemotherapy, and potentially with more durable responses,” she said. “But certainly, it is a way to potentially identify patients where immunotherapy alone may have very high rates of response.”

IMPower133 showed no difference in hazard ratios for death based on TMB detected in the blood in SCLC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, but “this still supports using the immunotherapy/chemotherapy combination broadly, and also emphasizes the need for an improved – and probably expanded – look at other biomarkers that may help predict response,” she said.

PD-L1 appears to have a role as a biomarker in this setting as well, she said, citing the KEYNOTE-028 findings of numerically improved responses in PD-L1–positive SCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab.

“We should be looking at PD-L1 levels, but we need further information to know how we might use this,” she said.

In immunotherapy-naive patients who relapse after front-line chemotherapy, the most important biomarker is clinical history and duration of response to platinum, which helps guide second-line treatment, Dr. Byers said.

“I think there’s consensus among most of us that patients who have platinum-refractory disease and are unlikely to respond to further platinum therapy or other chemotherapy agents are patients who really should get immunotherapy,” she added, explaining that the available data suggest there is no cross-resistance and that there may actually be enhanced benefit with immunotherapy in such patients.

Using molecular data to identify SCLC subtypes based on gene expression profiles is another area of interest, she said.

In fact, new data presented at the WCLC conference by Carl Gay, MD, PhD, a former fellow in her lab and now a junior faculty member at MD Anderson, identified four specific SCLC subgroups; three were driven by activation of the known transcription factors ASCL1, NEUROD1, and POU2F3, but an additional “inflamed” group without expression of those three transcription factors was also identified.

That “triple-negative” group had significantly higher expression of human leukocyte antigen and very high T-cell activation with expression of multiple immune checkpoints representing candidate targets, she said, adding: “We hypothesize that this group may be the group in SCLC that gets relatively greater benefit from immune checkpoint blockade.”

DDR is also garnering attention.

“Since there was this signal that [patients with] DNA damage ... tend to be more sensitive to immunotherapy ... we looked at whether or not targeted agents that prevented repair of DNA damage and induced increased levels of DNA damage ... might activate the innate immune system through the STING pathway and if that could be a potential approach to enhance immunotherapy response,” she said.

The approach showed promise in cell lines in a mouse model and also in an immunocompetent SCLC mouse model.

“It was really interesting to see how these drugs might potentially enhance response to immunotherapy,” Dr. Byers said, noting that the same phenomenon has been seen with PARP inhibitors in breast and colon cancer models and in other solid tumors.

“So I think that there is something there, and fortunately we’re now at a point now where we can start looking at some of these combinations in the clinic across many different cancer types,” she said. “I think we’ll be learning a lot more about what’s happening with these patients.”

At present, however, “there is more that we don’t know about the immune landscape of small cell lung cancer than what we do know, and that’s a real opportunity where, over the next several years, we will gain a deeper understanding ... that will direct where we’re going in terms of translating that back into the clinic.”
 

The SCLC immune microenvironment

The immune microenvironment will be an integral part of that journey, according to Dr. Liu.

“We consider small cell lung cancer – a carcinogen-associated cancer – to be one that has a high somatic mutation rate, but what we’ve learned over the past few years is that tumor neoantigens are certainly necessary – but not sufficient,” he said, noting that mutational burden represents the potential for immune-mediated antitumor responses, but is not a guarantee.

“As a group, we need to develop strategies to overcome the powerful immunosuppressive microenvironment in small cell lung cancer,” he added.

Lessons learned from studying PD-L1 provided the first insight into the importance of the immune microenvironment: PD-L1 expression, as measured by tumor proportion score (TPS) holds predictive value in non–small cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors, but the SCLC story is much more complex, he said.

Only 18% of SCLC patients in CheckMate 032 were PD-L1–positive, and “paradoxically, we see responses were better in the PD-L1–negative group,” he explained. The response rates for nivolumab/ipilimumab were 32% in the PD-L1–negative group and 10% in the PD-L1–positive group.

Recent findings regarding the use of the combined positive score (CPS), which unlike the TPS for determining PD-L1 status, includes PD-L1 expression on stromal cells, are also notable. In a phase 2 study of maintenance pembrolizumab in SCLC, for example, 3 of 30 patients were PD-L1 positive by TPS, and 8 of 20 were positive by CPS.

“And that did predict outcomes: We see a higher response rate [38% vs. 8%], better PFS [6.5 vs. 1.3 months], and better overall survival [13 months vs. 8 months] in pretreated small cell lung cancer,” he said.

Similarly, in KEYNOTE-158 when looking at pembrolizumab in previously treated SCLC, the overall response was modest at 18.7%, and median PFS was 2.0 months.

“Again, breaking it down by CPS, we see a different story,” Dr. Liu said. “We see better outcomes in the PD-L1–positive [group] if you’re factoring in expression in the microenvironment.” When assessed by CPS, 39% of patients were PD-L1 positive; those patients, when compared with PD-L1–negative patients, had improved 12-month PFS (28.5% vs. 8.2%, respectively), 12-month OS (53.3% vs. 30.7%), and median OS (14.9 vs. 5.9 months).

Checkpoint expression in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) also has been shown to vary when compared with tumor expression. SCLC tissue microarrays in a study presented at ASCO 2017 (Rivalland et al. Abstract 8569), for example, showed that tumor expression versus TIL expression of PD-L1, TIMS3, and LAG3 was 18% vs. 67%, 0% vs. 59%, and 0% vs. 45%, respectively, and the TIL expression correlated with survival, Dr. Liu said.

“So when we consider things like PD-L1 expression, looking at a narrow scope of just the tumor is not enough. We need to consider the stromal cells, the microenvironment,” he said. “And even larger than that, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is but a fraction of powerful, dynamic, immunosuppressive factors in small cell lung cancer.

“All of these will need to be accounted for in various patients.”

These findings and others, like those from a recent study showing differentially expressed genes and pathways in the stromal cells of longer- versus shorter-term survivors, raise questions about whether the lymphoid compartment can be manipulated in SCLC to improve immune responses using the strategies discussed by Dr. Antonia and Dr. Byers, he said.

In “cold” tumor phenotypes, one hypothesis has tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) preventing infiltration of the cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which raises the possibility that TAMs are a therapeutic target, he said.

“At this meeting and others we’ve heard of lurbinectedin as a possible active drug in SCLC,” he said, noting that preclinical data also demonstrate that lurbinectedin targets TAMs. Perhaps the agent’s future role will be that of an immune modulator rather than a cytotoxic agent, he suggested.

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are another potential immunomodulatory target, but the problem is their redundancy and the lack of good models to identify which ones are active, he said.

“Myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSC] are another important part of the microenvironment and could be potential targets to restore immune responses,” he added.

But many questions remain, he said.

For example: How can we overcome an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment? Can we inhibit arginine or adenosine? Can we restore interleukin-2? Can we target things like LAG3? Can we eliminate the Treg and MDSC population? Which strategies are appropriate? Are they the same in immunotherapy-naive vs. immunotherapy-experienced patients – is intrinsic resistance the same as acquired resistance? Are they the same in each patient, or even throughout each tumor?

And importantly, “how will we choose between these various molecules we have?” he asked.

“At this point we’ve learned that empiric strategies are unlikely to yield meaningful results. We’ve been through empiric strategies in SCLC for years, and it doesn’t work because of that heterogeneity – unless there’s a universal underlying mechanism,” he said. “I think more than likely the studies have to be enriched for the right patients; we need to apply everything we’ve learned from non–small cell lung cancer and apply the principles of targeted therapy to immunotherapy – and that requires the identification of predictive biomarkers.”

It’s a challenging task in SCLC, but “it still needs to be done,” he said, noting that the lack of “perfect models” means relying on cell lines in surgical specimens.

However, while surgical tissue banks are an important resource, there is doubt about whether the specimens are representative of patients in the clinic, he noted.

“At best need to confirm what we know; at worst we may need to rework a lot of the underlying maps,” he said.

Therefore, future SCLC studies “are simply going to need more biopsies,” and that is yet another challenge, he added, explaining that the largely central tumors and fairly aggressive, rapid course of disease in SCLC make it difficult to obtain meaningful biopsies.

“But it’s the only way to move forward,” he said. “As a community we have to stand up and obtain more biopsies and tissue for in-depth analysis.”

As much as that will advance the field, the greatest impact for SCLC will be through prevention, including by smoking cessation, he added.

“Our overarching goal for small cell lung cancer remains achieving durable disease control and long-term survival for our patients,” Dr. Liu said. “That certainly is a lofty goal, but those are probably the only goals worth having.”

Dr. Liu, Dr. Byers, and Dr. Antonia reported relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.




 

NEW ORLEANS – Patients tended to recall the benefits of lung cancer screening much more than the risks in a recent survey, underscoring the need for ongoing patient education beyond the initial shared decision-making encounter, a researcher said.

While about 9 in 10 patients recalled key information on the benefits, only about 4 in 10 recalled information on risks, according to Erin Hirsch, MSPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora.

“This may mean we need ongoing clinician involvement or continued education about this important information, especially if the patients aren’t screening annually,” Ms. Hirsch said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Even fewer patients could correctly recall eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, which suggests “ongoing clinician involvement” is needed to identify appropriate patients, Hirsch added in her presentation.

Shared decision making about lung cancer screening, which is supposed to entail a balanced patient-provider conversation about eligibility, risks, and benefits, is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the cost of lung cancer screening as a preventative service, Hirsch noted in her presentation.

However, it’s largely unknown to what extent patients due for an annual screening recall information that should have been imparted in that initial discussion.

“The gap in knowledge centers around the fact that shared decision making is only required for baseline scan, but screening is recommended on an annual basis,” she said.

To test patient recall, Hirsch and colleagues developed a knowledge survey including 34 questions about lung cancer screening eligibility, risks, and benefits. The surveys went out by mail or email to 228 patients who had a baseline screening CT scan 6-12 months earlier; a total of 53 complete responses were included in the analysis, which focused on seven key questions about benefit, risk, and eligibility.

Recall was “excellent” for the benefit questions, Ms. Hirsch said, with 91% of patients able to recall that a computed tomography (CT) scan is better at detecting a possible lung cancer than a chest x-ray, while 87% recalled that without screening lung cancer is often found at a later stage when cure is less likely.

By contrast, a “moderate” amount (40%) remembered that a CT scan can suggest the patient has lung cancer when in fact they do not, she said, and only 38% recalled that radiation exposure was one of the harms of lung cancer screening, she added.

Eligibility recall was “poor,” she added, with only 21% affirming that not all current and former smokers need to be screened for lung cancer. Just 8% recalled that 55 years is the age at which beginning lung cancer screening is recommended, and 4% knew that 30 is the minimum number of pack-years required to be eligible for screening.

While these results may have clinical implications, Ms. Hirsch acknowledged a number of limitations to this pilot study. Among those was the fact that the content of the initial shared decision-making conversation could not be assessed: “We assumed that the patients were exposed to the information asked about in the survey ahead of time, but we can’t say for sure if that was true,” she explained.

Ms. Hirsch and coauthors disclosed no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Hirsch E et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.107.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients tended to recall the benefits of lung cancer screening much more than the risks in a recent survey, underscoring the need for ongoing patient education beyond the initial shared decision-making encounter, a researcher said.

While about 9 in 10 patients recalled key information on the benefits, only about 4 in 10 recalled information on risks, according to Erin Hirsch, MSPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora.

“This may mean we need ongoing clinician involvement or continued education about this important information, especially if the patients aren’t screening annually,” Ms. Hirsch said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Even fewer patients could correctly recall eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, which suggests “ongoing clinician involvement” is needed to identify appropriate patients, Hirsch added in her presentation.

Shared decision making about lung cancer screening, which is supposed to entail a balanced patient-provider conversation about eligibility, risks, and benefits, is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the cost of lung cancer screening as a preventative service, Hirsch noted in her presentation.

However, it’s largely unknown to what extent patients due for an annual screening recall information that should have been imparted in that initial discussion.

“The gap in knowledge centers around the fact that shared decision making is only required for baseline scan, but screening is recommended on an annual basis,” she said.

To test patient recall, Hirsch and colleagues developed a knowledge survey including 34 questions about lung cancer screening eligibility, risks, and benefits. The surveys went out by mail or email to 228 patients who had a baseline screening CT scan 6-12 months earlier; a total of 53 complete responses were included in the analysis, which focused on seven key questions about benefit, risk, and eligibility.

Recall was “excellent” for the benefit questions, Ms. Hirsch said, with 91% of patients able to recall that a computed tomography (CT) scan is better at detecting a possible lung cancer than a chest x-ray, while 87% recalled that without screening lung cancer is often found at a later stage when cure is less likely.

By contrast, a “moderate” amount (40%) remembered that a CT scan can suggest the patient has lung cancer when in fact they do not, she said, and only 38% recalled that radiation exposure was one of the harms of lung cancer screening, she added.

Eligibility recall was “poor,” she added, with only 21% affirming that not all current and former smokers need to be screened for lung cancer. Just 8% recalled that 55 years is the age at which beginning lung cancer screening is recommended, and 4% knew that 30 is the minimum number of pack-years required to be eligible for screening.

While these results may have clinical implications, Ms. Hirsch acknowledged a number of limitations to this pilot study. Among those was the fact that the content of the initial shared decision-making conversation could not be assessed: “We assumed that the patients were exposed to the information asked about in the survey ahead of time, but we can’t say for sure if that was true,” she explained.

Ms. Hirsch and coauthors disclosed no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Hirsch E et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.107.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients tended to recall the benefits of lung cancer screening much more than the risks in a recent survey, underscoring the need for ongoing patient education beyond the initial shared decision-making encounter, a researcher said.

While about 9 in 10 patients recalled key information on the benefits, only about 4 in 10 recalled information on risks, according to Erin Hirsch, MSPH, of the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora.

“This may mean we need ongoing clinician involvement or continued education about this important information, especially if the patients aren’t screening annually,” Ms. Hirsch said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Even fewer patients could correctly recall eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, which suggests “ongoing clinician involvement” is needed to identify appropriate patients, Hirsch added in her presentation.

Shared decision making about lung cancer screening, which is supposed to entail a balanced patient-provider conversation about eligibility, risks, and benefits, is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the cost of lung cancer screening as a preventative service, Hirsch noted in her presentation.

However, it’s largely unknown to what extent patients due for an annual screening recall information that should have been imparted in that initial discussion.

“The gap in knowledge centers around the fact that shared decision making is only required for baseline scan, but screening is recommended on an annual basis,” she said.

To test patient recall, Hirsch and colleagues developed a knowledge survey including 34 questions about lung cancer screening eligibility, risks, and benefits. The surveys went out by mail or email to 228 patients who had a baseline screening CT scan 6-12 months earlier; a total of 53 complete responses were included in the analysis, which focused on seven key questions about benefit, risk, and eligibility.

Recall was “excellent” for the benefit questions, Ms. Hirsch said, with 91% of patients able to recall that a computed tomography (CT) scan is better at detecting a possible lung cancer than a chest x-ray, while 87% recalled that without screening lung cancer is often found at a later stage when cure is less likely.

By contrast, a “moderate” amount (40%) remembered that a CT scan can suggest the patient has lung cancer when in fact they do not, she said, and only 38% recalled that radiation exposure was one of the harms of lung cancer screening, she added.

Eligibility recall was “poor,” she added, with only 21% affirming that not all current and former smokers need to be screened for lung cancer. Just 8% recalled that 55 years is the age at which beginning lung cancer screening is recommended, and 4% knew that 30 is the minimum number of pack-years required to be eligible for screening.

While these results may have clinical implications, Ms. Hirsch acknowledged a number of limitations to this pilot study. Among those was the fact that the content of the initial shared decision-making conversation could not be assessed: “We assumed that the patients were exposed to the information asked about in the survey ahead of time, but we can’t say for sure if that was true,” she explained.

Ms. Hirsch and coauthors disclosed no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Hirsch E et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.107.