Lung Cancer

BARCELONA – First-line flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was safe and showed encouraging clinical activity both in general and in patients with poor performance status and comorbidities in the multicenter CheckMate 817 study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rate in 139 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 2, for example, was 63%, compared with 77% in 391 patients with good ECOG PS (score of 0-1), and the rates of grade 3-4 AEs in the groups, respectively, were 26% and 35%, Fabrice Barlesi, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In 59 patients with ECOG PS of 0-1 plus either asymptomatic untreated brain metastases, hepatic or renal impairment, or HIV infection, the overall TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates were 78% and 34%.

The combined TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates in the two “special populations” cohorts were 67% and 28%, respectively, Dr. Barlesi, of Aix-Marseille Universite and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France, said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the ECOG PS-2 and PS-01+comorbidity groups was 19% and 37%, respectively, compared with 36% in the good PS cohort, and median duration of response in the three groups was 14.2 months, 9.7 months, and at least 18 months (median not reached), respectively.

The 1-year PFS rates were 25%, 27%, and 35% respectively, and median PFS was 3.6, 4.2, and 5.8, he said.

Among the 198 special population patients, those with PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater, 1% or greater, or less than 1% had 1-yr PFS rates of 46%, 24%, and 29% (median, 9.6, 3.2, and 3.9 months), and in those with 10 or greater mut/Mb and less than 10 mut/Mb, they were 42% and 17% (median, 8.3 and 2.8 months), respectively.

The single-arm, nonrandomized CheckMate 817 study evaluated the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks plus the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks, with treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years. Participants had stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had received no prior systemic therapy, and had no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors with distinct ... but complementary mechanisms of action,” Dr. Barlesi said, adding that in combination they have demonstrated clinical benefit vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

However, data are limited on safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with other comorbidities such as brain metastases, kidney and renal disease, and HIV, as such patients – despite comprising the majority of NSCLC patients at presentation – are typically ineligible for trial registration, he explained, adding that CheckMate 817 is a multicohort, nonrandomized, phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in such patients.

The findings show a safety profile “clearly comparable” to that observed in prior studies using weight-based nivolumab, he noted.

“Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed clearly encouraging clinical activity in this special population, with an overall response rate of 24%,” he said. “As expected, unfortunately, the outcomes in these special populations were affected by poor performance status, however, despite the poor performance status or comorbidities, those patients were shown to achieve durable responses ... with [an overall] duration of response at 1 year, of 57%.”

CheckMate 817 was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Barlesi disclosed financial relationships with Abbvie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Barlesi F et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.02.

BARCELONA – First-line flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was safe and showed encouraging clinical activity both in general and in patients with poor performance status and comorbidities in the multicenter CheckMate 817 study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rate in 139 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 2, for example, was 63%, compared with 77% in 391 patients with good ECOG PS (score of 0-1), and the rates of grade 3-4 AEs in the groups, respectively, were 26% and 35%, Fabrice Barlesi, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In 59 patients with ECOG PS of 0-1 plus either asymptomatic untreated brain metastases, hepatic or renal impairment, or HIV infection, the overall TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates were 78% and 34%.

The combined TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates in the two “special populations” cohorts were 67% and 28%, respectively, Dr. Barlesi, of Aix-Marseille Universite and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France, said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the ECOG PS-2 and PS-01+comorbidity groups was 19% and 37%, respectively, compared with 36% in the good PS cohort, and median duration of response in the three groups was 14.2 months, 9.7 months, and at least 18 months (median not reached), respectively.

The 1-year PFS rates were 25%, 27%, and 35% respectively, and median PFS was 3.6, 4.2, and 5.8, he said.

Among the 198 special population patients, those with PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater, 1% or greater, or less than 1% had 1-yr PFS rates of 46%, 24%, and 29% (median, 9.6, 3.2, and 3.9 months), and in those with 10 or greater mut/Mb and less than 10 mut/Mb, they were 42% and 17% (median, 8.3 and 2.8 months), respectively.

The single-arm, nonrandomized CheckMate 817 study evaluated the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks plus the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks, with treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years. Participants had stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had received no prior systemic therapy, and had no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors with distinct ... but complementary mechanisms of action,” Dr. Barlesi said, adding that in combination they have demonstrated clinical benefit vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

However, data are limited on safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with other comorbidities such as brain metastases, kidney and renal disease, and HIV, as such patients – despite comprising the majority of NSCLC patients at presentation – are typically ineligible for trial registration, he explained, adding that CheckMate 817 is a multicohort, nonrandomized, phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in such patients.

The findings show a safety profile “clearly comparable” to that observed in prior studies using weight-based nivolumab, he noted.

“Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed clearly encouraging clinical activity in this special population, with an overall response rate of 24%,” he said. “As expected, unfortunately, the outcomes in these special populations were affected by poor performance status, however, despite the poor performance status or comorbidities, those patients were shown to achieve durable responses ... with [an overall] duration of response at 1 year, of 57%.”

CheckMate 817 was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Barlesi disclosed financial relationships with Abbvie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Barlesi F et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.02.

BARCELONA – First-line flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was safe and showed encouraging clinical activity both in general and in patients with poor performance status and comorbidities in the multicenter CheckMate 817 study of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rate in 139 patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 2, for example, was 63%, compared with 77% in 391 patients with good ECOG PS (score of 0-1), and the rates of grade 3-4 AEs in the groups, respectively, were 26% and 35%, Fabrice Barlesi, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

In 59 patients with ECOG PS of 0-1 plus either asymptomatic untreated brain metastases, hepatic or renal impairment, or HIV infection, the overall TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates were 78% and 34%.

The combined TRAE and grade 3-4 TRAE rates in the two “special populations” cohorts were 67% and 28%, respectively, Dr. Barlesi, of Aix-Marseille Universite and Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, France, said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The overall response rate (ORR) in the ECOG PS-2 and PS-01+comorbidity groups was 19% and 37%, respectively, compared with 36% in the good PS cohort, and median duration of response in the three groups was 14.2 months, 9.7 months, and at least 18 months (median not reached), respectively.

The 1-year PFS rates were 25%, 27%, and 35% respectively, and median PFS was 3.6, 4.2, and 5.8, he said.

Among the 198 special population patients, those with PD-L1 expression of 50% or greater, 1% or greater, or less than 1% had 1-yr PFS rates of 46%, 24%, and 29% (median, 9.6, 3.2, and 3.9 months), and in those with 10 or greater mut/Mb and less than 10 mut/Mb, they were 42% and 17% (median, 8.3 and 2.8 months), respectively.

The single-arm, nonrandomized CheckMate 817 study evaluated the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg given intravenously every 2 weeks plus the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab at 1 mg/kg IV every 6 weeks, with treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for up to 2 years. Participants had stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), had received no prior systemic therapy, and had no known sensitizing EGFR or ALK alterations.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors with distinct ... but complementary mechanisms of action,” Dr. Barlesi said, adding that in combination they have demonstrated clinical benefit vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

However, data are limited on safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC with other comorbidities such as brain metastases, kidney and renal disease, and HIV, as such patients – despite comprising the majority of NSCLC patients at presentation – are typically ineligible for trial registration, he explained, adding that CheckMate 817 is a multicohort, nonrandomized, phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in such patients.

The findings show a safety profile “clearly comparable” to that observed in prior studies using weight-based nivolumab, he noted.

“Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed clearly encouraging clinical activity in this special population, with an overall response rate of 24%,” he said. “As expected, unfortunately, the outcomes in these special populations were affected by poor performance status, however, despite the poor performance status or comorbidities, those patients were shown to achieve durable responses ... with [an overall] duration of response at 1 year, of 57%.”

CheckMate 817 was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Barlesi disclosed financial relationships with Abbvie, ACEA, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda.

SOURCE: Barlesi F et al. WCLC 2019: Abstract OA04.02.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

BARCELONA – First-line pembrolizumab provides a durable long-term overall survival (OS) benefit, compared with that of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to 3-year data from the phase 3 Keynote-024 trial.

As previously reported, first-line treatment with the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, and had fewer adverse events after a median of 11.2 months of follow-up in the open-label trial. In 305 patients with advanced NSCLC, high PD-L1 expression, and an absence of targetable epidermal growth factor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene alterations, median PFS was 10.3 months vs. 6.0 months, and estimated OS was 80.2% vs. 72.4% in the groups, respectively (hazard ratios, 0.50 and 0.60, respectively).

At 3 years after treatment initiation, median OS was 26.3 months vs. 14.2 months in patients treated with pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (HR, 0.65), respectively, and the OS rates were 43.7% and 24.9%, Martin Reck, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

This was despite 98 of 151 patients assigned to chemotherapy crossing over to pembrolizumab, Dr. Reck, head of the department of thoracic oncology and the clinical trial department in the department of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany), noted at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Additionally, despite longer mean treatment duration in the pembrolizumab arm than in the chemotherapy arm (11.1 vs. 4.4 months), grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (31.2% vs. 53.3%), he said.

Of 38 patients in the pembrolizumab arm who completed 2 years of therapy, 34 were alive at 3 years, and 31 (81.6%) had an objective response, including 2 who had a complete response. Median duration of response was not reached, and OS was 97.4%.

Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 5 (13.2%) of those patients; no fatal treatment-related adverse events occurred.

Of note, 7 of 10 patients who completed 2 years of treatment, but who subsequently progressed, experienced an objective response with a second course of pembrolizumab, and 8 remain alive, he said.

Patients in KEYNOTE-024 were randomized to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for 2 years or investigator’s choice of platinum doublet for 4-6 cycles plus optional maintenance, with stratification by performance status, tumor histology, and region.

The findings confirm the long-term efficacy of pembrolizumab, compared with platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate “consistent benefit in overall survival ... despite a crossover of 65%,” and show the first signs of efficacy with reexposure to pembrolizumab at the time of progression.

“This is work in progress; currently we have data from 10 [reexposed] patients, but what we do see is clinical activity even after [reexposure] to pembrolizumab, so we do see a stabilization of response to the disease in 70% of the patients, and 50% are ongoing.”

The findings highlight a new reality: “There are really some patients who have this disease as a chronic disease induced by immunotherapy.” Dr. Reck said.

KEYNOTE-024 was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Reck reported receiving personal fees/honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MSD, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Reck M et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA14.01.

Most patients with stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have distant progression on standard therapy typically have one or two new lesions, often in the same organ, which suggests a role for local ablative therapy, according to investigators.

This conclusion was drawn from an exploratory analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial, which previously showed that durvalumab prolonged survival among patients with NSCLC who did not progress after chemoradiotherapy, which turned the trial protocol into a new standard of care.

At the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, coauthor Andreas Rimner, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented findings.

“There were always questions regarding detailed patterns of failure and disease progression in [the PACIFIC] trial,” Dr. Rimner said. “This study ... focuses on these patterns of failure, including the type of first progression in the patients on the PACIFIC trial.”

During the trial, 713 patients with NSCLC were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either durvalumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the superiority of durvalumab was clear, with a lower rate of progression (45.4% vs. 64.6%).

But the present analysis dug deeper into this finding by dividing patients into three groups based on site or sites of first progression: local (intrathoracic) progression only, distant (extrathoracic) progression only, or simultaneously local and distant progression. Scans were reviewed by an independent radiologist who was not involved in the original PACIFIC trial. In addition to spatial data, the investigators reported times until progression.

Regardless of site, durvalumab was associated with a longer time until progression or death. Although comparative values were not reached for distant or simultaneous spread, median time until local progression or death was reportable, at 25.2 months in the durvalumab group versus with 9.2 months in the placebo group.

These values were available, in part, because local spread was the most common type of progression: It occurred in 80.6% of patients who progressed on durvalumab and 74.5% of progressors in the placebo group.

Durvalumab reduced the rate of progression across the three spatial categories, compared with placebo, including local only (36.6% vs. 48.1%, respectively), distant only (6.9% vs. 13.1%), and simultaneously local and distant (1.9% vs. 3.4%). This means that, at first progression, new distant lesions were found in 8.8% of patients treated with durvalumab, compared with 16.5% of those treated with placebo. Of note, approximately two-thirds of patients with distant progression had only one or two distant lesions, often confined to one organ, most commonly the brain. This pattern of progression was observed in both treatment arms.

According to Dr. Rimner, this finding is clinically relevant because it suggests a potential role for local ablative therapy.

Expert perspective on the analysis was provided by Benjamin Movsas, MD, chair of radiation oncology at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit.

“The PACIFIC trial has really transformed the standard of care for patients with locally advanced, inoperable non–small cell lung cancer by adding immunotherapy to the prior standard of care combining chemotherapy and radiation, and this has shown a dramatic improvement in survival,” Dr. Movsas said.

“By adding the immunotherapy durvalumab, you can reduce risk of local failure, you can reduce the risk of distant failure, and interestingly enough, when patients do fail distantly, and this is true in both arms, they tended to fail in only one or two spots, which is encouraging because that suggests maybe a window of opportunity to treat those one or two spots, and we have newer technologies that allow us to consider that. So we really have a new paradigm.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Merck, Nanobiotix, Boehringer Ingelheim, and others.

SOURCE: Rimner A et al. ASTRO 2019, Abstract LBA6.

Most patients with stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have distant progression on standard therapy typically have one or two new lesions, often in the same organ, which suggests a role for local ablative therapy, according to investigators.

This conclusion was drawn from an exploratory analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial, which previously showed that durvalumab prolonged survival among patients with NSCLC who did not progress after chemoradiotherapy, which turned the trial protocol into a new standard of care.

At the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, coauthor Andreas Rimner, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented findings.

“There were always questions regarding detailed patterns of failure and disease progression in [the PACIFIC] trial,” Dr. Rimner said. “This study ... focuses on these patterns of failure, including the type of first progression in the patients on the PACIFIC trial.”

During the trial, 713 patients with NSCLC were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either durvalumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the superiority of durvalumab was clear, with a lower rate of progression (45.4% vs. 64.6%).

But the present analysis dug deeper into this finding by dividing patients into three groups based on site or sites of first progression: local (intrathoracic) progression only, distant (extrathoracic) progression only, or simultaneously local and distant progression. Scans were reviewed by an independent radiologist who was not involved in the original PACIFIC trial. In addition to spatial data, the investigators reported times until progression.

Regardless of site, durvalumab was associated with a longer time until progression or death. Although comparative values were not reached for distant or simultaneous spread, median time until local progression or death was reportable, at 25.2 months in the durvalumab group versus with 9.2 months in the placebo group.

These values were available, in part, because local spread was the most common type of progression: It occurred in 80.6% of patients who progressed on durvalumab and 74.5% of progressors in the placebo group.

Durvalumab reduced the rate of progression across the three spatial categories, compared with placebo, including local only (36.6% vs. 48.1%, respectively), distant only (6.9% vs. 13.1%), and simultaneously local and distant (1.9% vs. 3.4%). This means that, at first progression, new distant lesions were found in 8.8% of patients treated with durvalumab, compared with 16.5% of those treated with placebo. Of note, approximately two-thirds of patients with distant progression had only one or two distant lesions, often confined to one organ, most commonly the brain. This pattern of progression was observed in both treatment arms.

According to Dr. Rimner, this finding is clinically relevant because it suggests a potential role for local ablative therapy.

Expert perspective on the analysis was provided by Benjamin Movsas, MD, chair of radiation oncology at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit.

“The PACIFIC trial has really transformed the standard of care for patients with locally advanced, inoperable non–small cell lung cancer by adding immunotherapy to the prior standard of care combining chemotherapy and radiation, and this has shown a dramatic improvement in survival,” Dr. Movsas said.

“By adding the immunotherapy durvalumab, you can reduce risk of local failure, you can reduce the risk of distant failure, and interestingly enough, when patients do fail distantly, and this is true in both arms, they tended to fail in only one or two spots, which is encouraging because that suggests maybe a window of opportunity to treat those one or two spots, and we have newer technologies that allow us to consider that. So we really have a new paradigm.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Merck, Nanobiotix, Boehringer Ingelheim, and others.

SOURCE: Rimner A et al. ASTRO 2019, Abstract LBA6.

Most patients with stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have distant progression on standard therapy typically have one or two new lesions, often in the same organ, which suggests a role for local ablative therapy, according to investigators.

This conclusion was drawn from an exploratory analysis of the phase 3 PACIFIC trial, which previously showed that durvalumab prolonged survival among patients with NSCLC who did not progress after chemoradiotherapy, which turned the trial protocol into a new standard of care.

At the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, coauthor Andreas Rimner, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York presented findings.

“There were always questions regarding detailed patterns of failure and disease progression in [the PACIFIC] trial,” Dr. Rimner said. “This study ... focuses on these patterns of failure, including the type of first progression in the patients on the PACIFIC trial.”

During the trial, 713 patients with NSCLC were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either durvalumab or placebo. After a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the superiority of durvalumab was clear, with a lower rate of progression (45.4% vs. 64.6%).

But the present analysis dug deeper into this finding by dividing patients into three groups based on site or sites of first progression: local (intrathoracic) progression only, distant (extrathoracic) progression only, or simultaneously local and distant progression. Scans were reviewed by an independent radiologist who was not involved in the original PACIFIC trial. In addition to spatial data, the investigators reported times until progression.

Regardless of site, durvalumab was associated with a longer time until progression or death. Although comparative values were not reached for distant or simultaneous spread, median time until local progression or death was reportable, at 25.2 months in the durvalumab group versus with 9.2 months in the placebo group.

These values were available, in part, because local spread was the most common type of progression: It occurred in 80.6% of patients who progressed on durvalumab and 74.5% of progressors in the placebo group.

Durvalumab reduced the rate of progression across the three spatial categories, compared with placebo, including local only (36.6% vs. 48.1%, respectively), distant only (6.9% vs. 13.1%), and simultaneously local and distant (1.9% vs. 3.4%). This means that, at first progression, new distant lesions were found in 8.8% of patients treated with durvalumab, compared with 16.5% of those treated with placebo. Of note, approximately two-thirds of patients with distant progression had only one or two distant lesions, often confined to one organ, most commonly the brain. This pattern of progression was observed in both treatment arms.

According to Dr. Rimner, this finding is clinically relevant because it suggests a potential role for local ablative therapy.

Expert perspective on the analysis was provided by Benjamin Movsas, MD, chair of radiation oncology at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit.

“The PACIFIC trial has really transformed the standard of care for patients with locally advanced, inoperable non–small cell lung cancer by adding immunotherapy to the prior standard of care combining chemotherapy and radiation, and this has shown a dramatic improvement in survival,” Dr. Movsas said.

“By adding the immunotherapy durvalumab, you can reduce risk of local failure, you can reduce the risk of distant failure, and interestingly enough, when patients do fail distantly, and this is true in both arms, they tended to fail in only one or two spots, which is encouraging because that suggests maybe a window of opportunity to treat those one or two spots, and we have newer technologies that allow us to consider that. So we really have a new paradigm.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Merck, Nanobiotix, Boehringer Ingelheim, and others.

SOURCE: Rimner A et al. ASTRO 2019, Abstract LBA6.

For patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression on immunotherapy, adding stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could improve progression-free survival (PFS), according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Patients with more CD8+ T cells in circulation, and those with higher tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores derived the most benefit from SBRT, lead author Allison Campbell, MD, PhD, of Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“In rare cases, adding radiation to immunotherapy has been shown to result in therapeutic synergy,” Dr. Campbell said. “When we give high-dose radiation to patients on immunotherapy, some tumors that were not targeted by the radiation can shrink, and this is called ‘the abscopal effect.’ ”

The investigators designed the phase 2 trial to determine if the abscopal effect would occur if high-dose radiation was delivered to a single site in patients who had progressed on checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Fifty-six patients were enrolled, all with at least two sites of metastatic NSCLC. Of these patients, 6 had already progressed on immunotherapy, while 50 were naive to immunotherapy and began pembrolizumab during the trial, with 16 eventually progressing; collectively, these 22 patients with disease progression were identified as candidates for SBRT. Almost all candidates (21 out of 22) completed SBRT, which was delivered in three or five high-dose fractions. Only one site was treated, while other sites were tracked over time with computed tomography (CT) to assess for the abscopal effect. In addition, blood was analyzed for circulating immune cell composition.

After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the disease control rate was 57%, with some abscopal responses detected. Two patients (10%) achieved a partial response lasting more than 1 year, and 10 patients (48%) maintained stable disease after SBRT. Although programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity was associated with a trend toward increased PFS, this was not statistically significant. In contrast, TIL score was significantly correlated with PFS; patients with TIL scores of 2-3 had a median PFS of 6.7 months, compared with 2.2 months among those with TIL scores of 1 or less. Similarly, immune-related adverse events predicted outcome, with patients who experienced such events achieving longer median PFS than those who did not (6.5 vs 2.2 months). Furthermore, blood testing revealed that the best responders had more CD8+ killer T cells and fewer CD4+ regulatory T cells in peripheral blood compared with patients who responded poorly.

After Dr. Campbell’s presentation, Benjamin Movsas, MD, chair of radiation oncology at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit, offered some expert insight. “[The findings from this study] suggest perhaps that radiation may be able to reinvigorate the immune system,” Dr. Movsas said. “Maybe we can get more mileage out of the immunotherapy with this approach. Could radiation kind of be like an immune vaccine of sorts? There’s a lot of exciting possibilities.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Dr. Movsas also noted how biomarker findings may be able to guide treatment decisions, highlighting how T cell populations predicted outcomes. “This era of precision medicine is really helping us improve benefits,” he said. “The immune profile really matters.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, and others.

SOURCE: Campbell et al. ASTRO 2019. Abstract 74.

For patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression on immunotherapy, adding stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could improve progression-free survival (PFS), according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Patients with more CD8+ T cells in circulation, and those with higher tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores derived the most benefit from SBRT, lead author Allison Campbell, MD, PhD, of Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“In rare cases, adding radiation to immunotherapy has been shown to result in therapeutic synergy,” Dr. Campbell said. “When we give high-dose radiation to patients on immunotherapy, some tumors that were not targeted by the radiation can shrink, and this is called ‘the abscopal effect.’ ”

The investigators designed the phase 2 trial to determine if the abscopal effect would occur if high-dose radiation was delivered to a single site in patients who had progressed on checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Fifty-six patients were enrolled, all with at least two sites of metastatic NSCLC. Of these patients, 6 had already progressed on immunotherapy, while 50 were naive to immunotherapy and began pembrolizumab during the trial, with 16 eventually progressing; collectively, these 22 patients with disease progression were identified as candidates for SBRT. Almost all candidates (21 out of 22) completed SBRT, which was delivered in three or five high-dose fractions. Only one site was treated, while other sites were tracked over time with computed tomography (CT) to assess for the abscopal effect. In addition, blood was analyzed for circulating immune cell composition.

After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the disease control rate was 57%, with some abscopal responses detected. Two patients (10%) achieved a partial response lasting more than 1 year, and 10 patients (48%) maintained stable disease after SBRT. Although programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity was associated with a trend toward increased PFS, this was not statistically significant. In contrast, TIL score was significantly correlated with PFS; patients with TIL scores of 2-3 had a median PFS of 6.7 months, compared with 2.2 months among those with TIL scores of 1 or less. Similarly, immune-related adverse events predicted outcome, with patients who experienced such events achieving longer median PFS than those who did not (6.5 vs 2.2 months). Furthermore, blood testing revealed that the best responders had more CD8+ killer T cells and fewer CD4+ regulatory T cells in peripheral blood compared with patients who responded poorly.

After Dr. Campbell’s presentation, Benjamin Movsas, MD, chair of radiation oncology at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit, offered some expert insight. “[The findings from this study] suggest perhaps that radiation may be able to reinvigorate the immune system,” Dr. Movsas said. “Maybe we can get more mileage out of the immunotherapy with this approach. Could radiation kind of be like an immune vaccine of sorts? There’s a lot of exciting possibilities.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Dr. Movsas also noted how biomarker findings may be able to guide treatment decisions, highlighting how T cell populations predicted outcomes. “This era of precision medicine is really helping us improve benefits,” he said. “The immune profile really matters.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, and others.

SOURCE: Campbell et al. ASTRO 2019. Abstract 74.

For patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression on immunotherapy, adding stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) could improve progression-free survival (PFS), according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Patients with more CD8+ T cells in circulation, and those with higher tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores derived the most benefit from SBRT, lead author Allison Campbell, MD, PhD, of Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn., and colleagues, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“In rare cases, adding radiation to immunotherapy has been shown to result in therapeutic synergy,” Dr. Campbell said. “When we give high-dose radiation to patients on immunotherapy, some tumors that were not targeted by the radiation can shrink, and this is called ‘the abscopal effect.’ ”

The investigators designed the phase 2 trial to determine if the abscopal effect would occur if high-dose radiation was delivered to a single site in patients who had progressed on checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Fifty-six patients were enrolled, all with at least two sites of metastatic NSCLC. Of these patients, 6 had already progressed on immunotherapy, while 50 were naive to immunotherapy and began pembrolizumab during the trial, with 16 eventually progressing; collectively, these 22 patients with disease progression were identified as candidates for SBRT. Almost all candidates (21 out of 22) completed SBRT, which was delivered in three or five high-dose fractions. Only one site was treated, while other sites were tracked over time with computed tomography (CT) to assess for the abscopal effect. In addition, blood was analyzed for circulating immune cell composition.

After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the disease control rate was 57%, with some abscopal responses detected. Two patients (10%) achieved a partial response lasting more than 1 year, and 10 patients (48%) maintained stable disease after SBRT. Although programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity was associated with a trend toward increased PFS, this was not statistically significant. In contrast, TIL score was significantly correlated with PFS; patients with TIL scores of 2-3 had a median PFS of 6.7 months, compared with 2.2 months among those with TIL scores of 1 or less. Similarly, immune-related adverse events predicted outcome, with patients who experienced such events achieving longer median PFS than those who did not (6.5 vs 2.2 months). Furthermore, blood testing revealed that the best responders had more CD8+ killer T cells and fewer CD4+ regulatory T cells in peripheral blood compared with patients who responded poorly.

After Dr. Campbell’s presentation, Benjamin Movsas, MD, chair of radiation oncology at the Henry Ford Cancer Institute in Detroit, offered some expert insight. “[The findings from this study] suggest perhaps that radiation may be able to reinvigorate the immune system,” Dr. Movsas said. “Maybe we can get more mileage out of the immunotherapy with this approach. Could radiation kind of be like an immune vaccine of sorts? There’s a lot of exciting possibilities.”

Will Pass/MDedge News

Dr. Movsas also noted how biomarker findings may be able to guide treatment decisions, highlighting how T cell populations predicted outcomes. “This era of precision medicine is really helping us improve benefits,” he said. “The immune profile really matters.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Merck, and others.

SOURCE: Campbell et al. ASTRO 2019. Abstract 74.

A significant proportion of institutions that perform low-dose CT for lung cancer screening exceed the radiation dose levels that guidelines recommend, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images

Various institutional characteristics, such as allowing any radiologist to establish CT scan protocols, are associated with a greater likelihood of using higher radiation doses. “Dose optimization practices may benefit from being tailored to specific practice types, as well as different organizational structures, to have a higher likelihood of meeting dose guidelines,” wrote Joshua Demb, PhD, MPH, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

Lung cancer screening benefits patients when low-dose CT is used, but not when high-dose CT is used, because radiation from higher doses may cause as many cancers as are detected by screening. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require institutions to use low-dose techniques and participate in a dose registry to be reimbursed for lung cancer screening. The American College of Radiology recommends that lung cancer screening scans have a volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 3 mGy or lower and an effective dose (ED) of 1 millisieverts (mSv) or lower.

A prospective study of registry data

Dr. Demb and colleagues conducted a study to describe CT radiation doses for lung cancer screening in current practice and to identify the factors that explain variation in doses between institutions. They prospectively collected lung cancer screening examination dose metrics from 2016 to 2017 at U.S. institutions participating in the University of California, San Francisco, International Dose Registry. Eligible institutions performed a minimum of 24 lung cancer screening scans during the study period. At baseline, the investigators surveyed institutions about their characteristics (for example, how they perform and oversee CT). Dr. Demb and colleagues estimated mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models using forward variable selection. They conducted their analysis between 2018 and 2019.

The researchers chose four outcome measures. The first was mean CTDIvol, reflecting the average radiation dose per slice. The second was mean ED, reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk. The third was the proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks. The fourth was the proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above the 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol greater than 2.7 mGy and ED greater than 1.4 mSv).

Institutional characteristics associated with radiation dose

Dr. Demb and colleagues collected data from 72 institutions about 12,529 patients undergoing CT scans for lung cancer screening. Approximately 58% of patients were men, and the patients’ median age was 65 years. The mean CTDIvol, adjusted for patient size, was 2.4 mGy. The mean ED for lung cancer screening, adjusted for chest diameter, was 1.2 mSv.

A total of 15 institutions (21%) had a median adjusted CTDIvol value higher than the ACR guideline, and 47 (65%) had a median adjusted ED higher than the ACR guideline. Approximately 18% of CT scans had a CTDIvol higher than guidelines, and 50% had an ED higher than ACR guidelines.

Institutions that permitted any radiologist to establish CT protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol and 27% higher mean ED, compared with institutions that restricted who could establish protocols. Institutions that permitted any radiologist to establish protocols also had higher odds of conducting examinations that exceeded ACR CTDIvol guidelines (odds ratio, 12.0) and of being in the 75th percentile of the registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0) or ED (OR, 8.5) values.

In contrast, having lead radiologists establish CT protocols resulted in lower odds of using doses that exceeded ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01). Employing external, rather than internal, medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding the 75th percentile of the registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09) values. Institutions that updated protocols as needed, rather than annually, had 27% higher mean CTDIvol.

“Although we cannot establish causality in this observational study, our results suggest that considering these factors (for example, allowing only lead radiologists to establish protocols) could have a meaningful impact on dose, and could be important areas to develop interventions to optimize doses of CT protocols” the investigators wrote.

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Institutes of Health supported this research. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Demb J et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3893.

A significant proportion of institutions that perform low-dose CT for lung cancer screening exceed the radiation dose levels that guidelines recommend, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images

Various institutional characteristics, such as allowing any radiologist to establish CT scan protocols, are associated with a greater likelihood of using higher radiation doses. “Dose optimization practices may benefit from being tailored to specific practice types, as well as different organizational structures, to have a higher likelihood of meeting dose guidelines,” wrote Joshua Demb, PhD, MPH, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

Lung cancer screening benefits patients when low-dose CT is used, but not when high-dose CT is used, because radiation from higher doses may cause as many cancers as are detected by screening. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require institutions to use low-dose techniques and participate in a dose registry to be reimbursed for lung cancer screening. The American College of Radiology recommends that lung cancer screening scans have a volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 3 mGy or lower and an effective dose (ED) of 1 millisieverts (mSv) or lower.

A prospective study of registry data

Dr. Demb and colleagues conducted a study to describe CT radiation doses for lung cancer screening in current practice and to identify the factors that explain variation in doses between institutions. They prospectively collected lung cancer screening examination dose metrics from 2016 to 2017 at U.S. institutions participating in the University of California, San Francisco, International Dose Registry. Eligible institutions performed a minimum of 24 lung cancer screening scans during the study period. At baseline, the investigators surveyed institutions about their characteristics (for example, how they perform and oversee CT). Dr. Demb and colleagues estimated mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models using forward variable selection. They conducted their analysis between 2018 and 2019.

The researchers chose four outcome measures. The first was mean CTDIvol, reflecting the average radiation dose per slice. The second was mean ED, reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk. The third was the proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks. The fourth was the proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above the 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol greater than 2.7 mGy and ED greater than 1.4 mSv).

Institutional characteristics associated with radiation dose

Dr. Demb and colleagues collected data from 72 institutions about 12,529 patients undergoing CT scans for lung cancer screening. Approximately 58% of patients were men, and the patients’ median age was 65 years. The mean CTDIvol, adjusted for patient size, was 2.4 mGy. The mean ED for lung cancer screening, adjusted for chest diameter, was 1.2 mSv.

A total of 15 institutions (21%) had a median adjusted CTDIvol value higher than the ACR guideline, and 47 (65%) had a median adjusted ED higher than the ACR guideline. Approximately 18% of CT scans had a CTDIvol higher than guidelines, and 50% had an ED higher than ACR guidelines.

Institutions that permitted any radiologist to establish CT protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol and 27% higher mean ED, compared with institutions that restricted who could establish protocols. Institutions that permitted any radiologist to establish protocols also had higher odds of conducting examinations that exceeded ACR CTDIvol guidelines (odds ratio, 12.0) and of being in the 75th percentile of the registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0) or ED (OR, 8.5) values.

In contrast, having lead radiologists establish CT protocols resulted in lower odds of using doses that exceeded ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01). Employing external, rather than internal, medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding the 75th percentile of the registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09) values. Institutions that updated protocols as needed, rather than annually, had 27% higher mean CTDIvol.

“Although we cannot establish causality in this observational study, our results suggest that considering these factors (for example, allowing only lead radiologists to establish protocols) could have a meaningful impact on dose, and could be important areas to develop interventions to optimize doses of CT protocols” the investigators wrote.

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Institutes of Health supported this research. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Demb J et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3893.

A significant proportion of institutions that perform low-dose CT for lung cancer screening exceed the radiation dose levels that guidelines recommend, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images

Various institutional characteristics, such as allowing any radiologist to establish CT scan protocols, are associated with a greater likelihood of using higher radiation doses. “Dose optimization practices may benefit from being tailored to specific practice types, as well as different organizational structures, to have a higher likelihood of meeting dose guidelines,” wrote Joshua Demb, PhD, MPH, a cancer epidemiologist at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

Lung cancer screening benefits patients when low-dose CT is used, but not when high-dose CT is used, because radiation from higher doses may cause as many cancers as are detected by screening. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services require institutions to use low-dose techniques and participate in a dose registry to be reimbursed for lung cancer screening. The American College of Radiology recommends that lung cancer screening scans have a volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) of 3 mGy or lower and an effective dose (ED) of 1 millisieverts (mSv) or lower.

A prospective study of registry data

Dr. Demb and colleagues conducted a study to describe CT radiation doses for lung cancer screening in current practice and to identify the factors that explain variation in doses between institutions. They prospectively collected lung cancer screening examination dose metrics from 2016 to 2017 at U.S. institutions participating in the University of California, San Francisco, International Dose Registry. Eligible institutions performed a minimum of 24 lung cancer screening scans during the study period. At baseline, the investigators surveyed institutions about their characteristics (for example, how they perform and oversee CT). Dr. Demb and colleagues estimated mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models using forward variable selection. They conducted their analysis between 2018 and 2019.

The researchers chose four outcome measures. The first was mean CTDIvol, reflecting the average radiation dose per slice. The second was mean ED, reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk. The third was the proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks. The fourth was the proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above the 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol greater than 2.7 mGy and ED greater than 1.4 mSv).

Institutional characteristics associated with radiation dose

Dr. Demb and colleagues collected data from 72 institutions about 12,529 patients undergoing CT scans for lung cancer screening. Approximately 58% of patients were men, and the patients’ median age was 65 years. The mean CTDIvol, adjusted for patient size, was 2.4 mGy. The mean ED for lung cancer screening, adjusted for chest diameter, was 1.2 mSv.

A total of 15 institutions (21%) had a median adjusted CTDIvol value higher than the ACR guideline, and 47 (65%) had a median adjusted ED higher than the ACR guideline. Approximately 18% of CT scans had a CTDIvol higher than guidelines, and 50% had an ED higher than ACR guidelines.

Institutions that permitted any radiologist to establish CT protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol and 27% higher mean ED, compared with institutions that restricted who could establish protocols. Institutions that permitted any radiologist to establish protocols also had higher odds of conducting examinations that exceeded ACR CTDIvol guidelines (odds ratio, 12.0) and of being in the 75th percentile of the registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0) or ED (OR, 8.5) values.

In contrast, having lead radiologists establish CT protocols resulted in lower odds of using doses that exceeded ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01). Employing external, rather than internal, medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding the 75th percentile of the registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09) values. Institutions that updated protocols as needed, rather than annually, had 27% higher mean CTDIvol.

“Although we cannot establish causality in this observational study, our results suggest that considering these factors (for example, allowing only lead radiologists to establish protocols) could have a meaningful impact on dose, and could be important areas to develop interventions to optimize doses of CT protocols” the investigators wrote.

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Institutes of Health supported this research. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Demb J et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Sep 23. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3893.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I highlight two studies addressing long-term survival for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes survival of patients who received nivolumab therapy in the second- or later-line setting. The other is a retrospective database query regarding whether local consolidation (LC) improves survival after systemic treatment of patients with oligometastatic NSCLC.

Nivolumab therapy

Scott J. Antonia, MD, PhD, and colleagues sought to determine the frequency of long-term survival among advanced NSCLC patients who received nivolumab in the second-line or later settings (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[19]30407-3). They aggregated the results of four trials. Checkmate 017 and 057 were phase 3 comparisons of nivolumab with docetaxel for nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC, respectively – with crossover from docetaxel to nivolumab permitted. Checkmate 003 was a dose-escalation trial and Checkmate 063 was a phase 2 study of nivolumab in advanced, refractory squamous NSCLC. A minimum follow-up of 4 years was required.

In total, 664 patients participated in the four trials, more than 85% of whom received the fairly standard dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. In a very data-dense analysis, among all patients who received nivolumab, the 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% confidence interval, 11%-17%). Four-year overall survival was higher (19%; 95% CI, 15%-24%) in patients with at least 1% programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. There was no difference by histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous). Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status of 0, PD-L1 greater than 10%, and absence of liver metastases were more likely to achieve 4-year overall survival.

Although progression-free survival was low (8%, overall; 19% for patients achieving complete remission or partial remission), depth of response correlated with the 4-year overall survival rate. Those patients in complete or partial remission at 6 months had an overall survival at 4 years of 56%. Stable disease at 6 months showed an overall survival at 4 years of 19%, which was superior to the results for patients with partial disease as best response (4%).

There were two treatment-related deaths with nivolumab, with no unexpected safety signals. Despite allowing continuous treatment in three of the four studies, most potentially immune-related toxic events occurred in the first 2-3 years of therapy. In the two randomized studies (017 and 057), 4-year overall survival was higher with nivolumab (14%) than with docetaxel (5%), with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals.

What this means in practice

British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli (and, later, Mark Twain) said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” There are no lies in Dr. Antonia’s paper, but there are plenty of statistics – which oncologists love. The reported data enable us to put some boundaries on the figures we quote when patients ask us, “How well could I do with this treatment?” Dr. Antonia’s paper significantly assists with these very practical discussions. For patients who want more detail, the boundaries can be further refined. Dr. Antonia and colleagues have given us clinical (depth of response, performance status, sites of metastasis) and molecular (proportion of cells with PD-L1) refinements to personalize our consultations with patients.

Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to predict who should not receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor and, instead, receive late-line chemotherapy or early hospice referral. The data summarize well-executed clinical trials, but it is well known that (as reported at the Quality Care Symposium 2019) NSCLC patients participating in clinical trials have significantly improved survival rates – perhaps as much as two times – compared with those not enrolled in trials. These realities, however, should not obscure the fact that immune checkpoint inhibitors are a major advance for metastatic NSCLC patients, including those who have progressed after prior treatment. They offer hope for cancer-free or cancer-controlled survival that would have properly been placed in the category of “a miracle” just a few years ago.

Local consolidation

Johannes Uhlig, MD, and colleagues analyzed 6 years of National Cancer Database records, identifying 34,887 stage IV NSCLC patients who had fewer than two distant metastatic lesions in the liver, lung, brain, or bone (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9702). Treatment groups were divided into patients who received systemic therapy alone (70.3% of the total patients), had surgical resection of the primary site plus systemic therapy (2.4%), or received external beam radiation therapy or thermal ablation (EBRT/TA) of the primary site plus systemic therapy (27.3%). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, incorporating a number of clinical variables, were used to compare overall survival between the three groups at a median follow-up of approximately 39 months.

They found that patients treated with surgical consolidation had a 41% lower mortality, in comparison with systemic therapy alone. EBRT/TA was also associated with lower mortality (by 5%), in comparison with systemic therapy alone, but the benefit was more nuanced. For instance, patients with squamous cell histology with low tumor bulk, low nodal burden, and fewer distant sites of disease benefited, but patients with adenocarcinoma and bulkier disease or more than two distant sites did not benefit.

The discussion emphasized all of the caveats that would be appropriate for a retrospective, telescopic record review – patient selection factors; lack of detail about systemic therapy; small numbers of patients in various subsets; exclusion of patients who had consolidative treatment of metastatic sites; and the potential for unbalanced allocation of patients with various actionable, prognostically relevant mutations. Further research, including ongoing trials such as NRG-LU002, was encouraged.

How these results influence clinical practice

Ralph R. Weichselbaum, MD, in his Karnofsky lecture at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology highlighted the hypothesis that metastatic tumors are enriched differentially for oligometastatic or polymetastatic miRNAs and that these miRNAs could influence future clinical behavior (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[32]:3240-50). This work, coupled with clinical features (number of sites of disease, pace of progression) could elucidate which oligometastatic NSCLC patients might benefit from aggressive local treatment and achieve long-term, disease-free survival.

As previously reported, Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues found improved median progression-free survival (14.2 vs. 4.4 months; P = .022) and overall survival (41.2 vs. 17.0 months; P = .017) among patients with oligometastatic NSCLC who were randomized to local consolidation versus standard maintenance therapy/observation (J Clin Oncol. 8 May 2019. doi: 10. 1200/JCO.19.00201). Joshua M. Bauml and colleagues reported impressive results for systemically treated stage IV NSCLC patients who received local consolidation and checkpoint inhibitors for “oligo-remnant disease” (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449).

At the present time, clinical practice should remain governed by the general tendency to discourage aggressive local treatment except in highly selected cases with poorly resolved or impending life-altering symptoms. The publication by Dr. Uhlig and colleagues and the previously reported phase 2 trials, support phase 3 randomized trials of local treatment of isolated sites in oligometastatic NSCLC patients, particularly in an era of immune-based systemic treatment that offers finite potential for long-term survival.

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 addressing long-term survival for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes survival of patients who received nivolumab therapy in the second- or later-line setting. The other is a retrospective database query regarding whether local consolidation (LC) improves survival after systemic treatment of patients with oligometastatic NSCLC.

Nivolumab therapy

Scott J. Antonia, MD, PhD, and colleagues sought to determine the frequency of long-term survival among advanced NSCLC patients who received nivolumab in the second-line or later settings (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[19]30407-3). They aggregated the results of four trials. Checkmate 017 and 057 were phase 3 comparisons of nivolumab with docetaxel for nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC, respectively – with crossover from docetaxel to nivolumab permitted. Checkmate 003 was a dose-escalation trial and Checkmate 063 was a phase 2 study of nivolumab in advanced, refractory squamous NSCLC. A minimum follow-up of 4 years was required.

In total, 664 patients participated in the four trials, more than 85% of whom received the fairly standard dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. In a very data-dense analysis, among all patients who received nivolumab, the 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% confidence interval, 11%-17%). Four-year overall survival was higher (19%; 95% CI, 15%-24%) in patients with at least 1% programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. There was no difference by histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous). Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status of 0, PD-L1 greater than 10%, and absence of liver metastases were more likely to achieve 4-year overall survival.

Although progression-free survival was low (8%, overall; 19% for patients achieving complete remission or partial remission), depth of response correlated with the 4-year overall survival rate. Those patients in complete or partial remission at 6 months had an overall survival at 4 years of 56%. Stable disease at 6 months showed an overall survival at 4 years of 19%, which was superior to the results for patients with partial disease as best response (4%).

There were two treatment-related deaths with nivolumab, with no unexpected safety signals. Despite allowing continuous treatment in three of the four studies, most potentially immune-related toxic events occurred in the first 2-3 years of therapy. In the two randomized studies (017 and 057), 4-year overall survival was higher with nivolumab (14%) than with docetaxel (5%), with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals.

What this means in practice

British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli (and, later, Mark Twain) said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” There are no lies in Dr. Antonia’s paper, but there are plenty of statistics – which oncologists love. The reported data enable us to put some boundaries on the figures we quote when patients ask us, “How well could I do with this treatment?” Dr. Antonia’s paper significantly assists with these very practical discussions. For patients who want more detail, the boundaries can be further refined. Dr. Antonia and colleagues have given us clinical (depth of response, performance status, sites of metastasis) and molecular (proportion of cells with PD-L1) refinements to personalize our consultations with patients.

Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to predict who should not receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor and, instead, receive late-line chemotherapy or early hospice referral. The data summarize well-executed clinical trials, but it is well known that (as reported at the Quality Care Symposium 2019) NSCLC patients participating in clinical trials have significantly improved survival rates – perhaps as much as two times – compared with those not enrolled in trials. These realities, however, should not obscure the fact that immune checkpoint inhibitors are a major advance for metastatic NSCLC patients, including those who have progressed after prior treatment. They offer hope for cancer-free or cancer-controlled survival that would have properly been placed in the category of “a miracle” just a few years ago.

Local consolidation

Johannes Uhlig, MD, and colleagues analyzed 6 years of National Cancer Database records, identifying 34,887 stage IV NSCLC patients who had fewer than two distant metastatic lesions in the liver, lung, brain, or bone (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9702). Treatment groups were divided into patients who received systemic therapy alone (70.3% of the total patients), had surgical resection of the primary site plus systemic therapy (2.4%), or received external beam radiation therapy or thermal ablation (EBRT/TA) of the primary site plus systemic therapy (27.3%). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, incorporating a number of clinical variables, were used to compare overall survival between the three groups at a median follow-up of approximately 39 months.

They found that patients treated with surgical consolidation had a 41% lower mortality, in comparison with systemic therapy alone. EBRT/TA was also associated with lower mortality (by 5%), in comparison with systemic therapy alone, but the benefit was more nuanced. For instance, patients with squamous cell histology with low tumor bulk, low nodal burden, and fewer distant sites of disease benefited, but patients with adenocarcinoma and bulkier disease or more than two distant sites did not benefit.

The discussion emphasized all of the caveats that would be appropriate for a retrospective, telescopic record review – patient selection factors; lack of detail about systemic therapy; small numbers of patients in various subsets; exclusion of patients who had consolidative treatment of metastatic sites; and the potential for unbalanced allocation of patients with various actionable, prognostically relevant mutations. Further research, including ongoing trials such as NRG-LU002, was encouraged.

How these results influence clinical practice

Ralph R. Weichselbaum, MD, in his Karnofsky lecture at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology highlighted the hypothesis that metastatic tumors are enriched differentially for oligometastatic or polymetastatic miRNAs and that these miRNAs could influence future clinical behavior (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[32]:3240-50). This work, coupled with clinical features (number of sites of disease, pace of progression) could elucidate which oligometastatic NSCLC patients might benefit from aggressive local treatment and achieve long-term, disease-free survival.

As previously reported, Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues found improved median progression-free survival (14.2 vs. 4.4 months; P = .022) and overall survival (41.2 vs. 17.0 months; P = .017) among patients with oligometastatic NSCLC who were randomized to local consolidation versus standard maintenance therapy/observation (J Clin Oncol. 8 May 2019. doi: 10. 1200/JCO.19.00201). Joshua M. Bauml and colleagues reported impressive results for systemically treated stage IV NSCLC patients who received local consolidation and checkpoint inhibitors for “oligo-remnant disease” (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449).

At the present time, clinical practice should remain governed by the general tendency to discourage aggressive local treatment except in highly selected cases with poorly resolved or impending life-altering symptoms. The publication by Dr. Uhlig and colleagues and the previously reported phase 2 trials, support phase 3 randomized trials of local treatment of isolated sites in oligometastatic NSCLC patients, particularly in an era of immune-based systemic treatment that offers finite potential for long-term survival.

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 addressing long-term survival for patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). One summarizes survival of patients who received nivolumab therapy in the second- or later-line setting. The other is a retrospective database query regarding whether local consolidation (LC) improves survival after systemic treatment of patients with oligometastatic NSCLC.

Nivolumab therapy

Scott J. Antonia, MD, PhD, and colleagues sought to determine the frequency of long-term survival among advanced NSCLC patients who received nivolumab in the second-line or later settings (Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[19]30407-3). They aggregated the results of four trials. Checkmate 017 and 057 were phase 3 comparisons of nivolumab with docetaxel for nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC, respectively – with crossover from docetaxel to nivolumab permitted. Checkmate 003 was a dose-escalation trial and Checkmate 063 was a phase 2 study of nivolumab in advanced, refractory squamous NSCLC. A minimum follow-up of 4 years was required.

In total, 664 patients participated in the four trials, more than 85% of whom received the fairly standard dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. In a very data-dense analysis, among all patients who received nivolumab, the 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% confidence interval, 11%-17%). Four-year overall survival was higher (19%; 95% CI, 15%-24%) in patients with at least 1% programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. There was no difference by histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous). Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status of 0, PD-L1 greater than 10%, and absence of liver metastases were more likely to achieve 4-year overall survival.

Although progression-free survival was low (8%, overall; 19% for patients achieving complete remission or partial remission), depth of response correlated with the 4-year overall survival rate. Those patients in complete or partial remission at 6 months had an overall survival at 4 years of 56%. Stable disease at 6 months showed an overall survival at 4 years of 19%, which was superior to the results for patients with partial disease as best response (4%).

There were two treatment-related deaths with nivolumab, with no unexpected safety signals. Despite allowing continuous treatment in three of the four studies, most potentially immune-related toxic events occurred in the first 2-3 years of therapy. In the two randomized studies (017 and 057), 4-year overall survival was higher with nivolumab (14%) than with docetaxel (5%), with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals.

What this means in practice

British prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli (and, later, Mark Twain) said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” There are no lies in Dr. Antonia’s paper, but there are plenty of statistics – which oncologists love. The reported data enable us to put some boundaries on the figures we quote when patients ask us, “How well could I do with this treatment?” Dr. Antonia’s paper significantly assists with these very practical discussions. For patients who want more detail, the boundaries can be further refined. Dr. Antonia and colleagues have given us clinical (depth of response, performance status, sites of metastasis) and molecular (proportion of cells with PD-L1) refinements to personalize our consultations with patients.

Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to predict who should not receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor and, instead, receive late-line chemotherapy or early hospice referral. The data summarize well-executed clinical trials, but it is well known that (as reported at the Quality Care Symposium 2019) NSCLC patients participating in clinical trials have significantly improved survival rates – perhaps as much as two times – compared with those not enrolled in trials. These realities, however, should not obscure the fact that immune checkpoint inhibitors are a major advance for metastatic NSCLC patients, including those who have progressed after prior treatment. They offer hope for cancer-free or cancer-controlled survival that would have properly been placed in the category of “a miracle” just a few years ago.

Local consolidation

Johannes Uhlig, MD, and colleagues analyzed 6 years of National Cancer Database records, identifying 34,887 stage IV NSCLC patients who had fewer than two distant metastatic lesions in the liver, lung, brain, or bone (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9702). Treatment groups were divided into patients who received systemic therapy alone (70.3% of the total patients), had surgical resection of the primary site plus systemic therapy (2.4%), or received external beam radiation therapy or thermal ablation (EBRT/TA) of the primary site plus systemic therapy (27.3%). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, incorporating a number of clinical variables, were used to compare overall survival between the three groups at a median follow-up of approximately 39 months.

They found that patients treated with surgical consolidation had a 41% lower mortality, in comparison with systemic therapy alone. EBRT/TA was also associated with lower mortality (by 5%), in comparison with systemic therapy alone, but the benefit was more nuanced. For instance, patients with squamous cell histology with low tumor bulk, low nodal burden, and fewer distant sites of disease benefited, but patients with adenocarcinoma and bulkier disease or more than two distant sites did not benefit.

The discussion emphasized all of the caveats that would be appropriate for a retrospective, telescopic record review – patient selection factors; lack of detail about systemic therapy; small numbers of patients in various subsets; exclusion of patients who had consolidative treatment of metastatic sites; and the potential for unbalanced allocation of patients with various actionable, prognostically relevant mutations. Further research, including ongoing trials such as NRG-LU002, was encouraged.

How these results influence clinical practice

Ralph R. Weichselbaum, MD, in his Karnofsky lecture at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology highlighted the hypothesis that metastatic tumors are enriched differentially for oligometastatic or polymetastatic miRNAs and that these miRNAs could influence future clinical behavior (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36[32]:3240-50). This work, coupled with clinical features (number of sites of disease, pace of progression) could elucidate which oligometastatic NSCLC patients might benefit from aggressive local treatment and achieve long-term, disease-free survival.

As previously reported, Daniel R. Gomez, MD, and colleagues found improved median progression-free survival (14.2 vs. 4.4 months; P = .022) and overall survival (41.2 vs. 17.0 months; P = .017) among patients with oligometastatic NSCLC who were randomized to local consolidation versus standard maintenance therapy/observation (J Clin Oncol. 8 May 2019. doi: 10. 1200/JCO.19.00201). Joshua M. Bauml and colleagues reported impressive results for systemically treated stage IV NSCLC patients who received local consolidation and checkpoint inhibitors for “oligo-remnant disease” (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1449).

At the present time, clinical practice should remain governed by the general tendency to discourage aggressive local treatment except in highly selected cases with poorly resolved or impending life-altering symptoms. The publication by Dr. Uhlig and colleagues and the previously reported phase 2 trials, support phase 3 randomized trials of local treatment of isolated sites in oligometastatic NSCLC patients, particularly in an era of immune-based systemic treatment that offers finite potential for long-term survival.

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.

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

BARCELONA – Final overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly among patients with stage IV squamous non–small cell lung carcinoma who were treated with either first-line atezolizumab + chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone in the phase 3 IMpower131 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 14.2 months vs. 13.5 months with vs. without the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88), Federico Cappuzzo, MD, director of medical oncology at Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale della Romagna-Ravenna, Italy, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

However, patients with high PD-L1 expression (14% and 13% of patients in the groups, respectively), experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in OS with atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone (median of 23.4 vs. 10.2 months; HR, 0.48), Dr. Cappuzzo said at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“This means we had a reduction in the risk of death that was more than 50%,” he said, adding that no new or unexpected safety signals were reported.

IMpower131 randomized 1,021 patients with a median age of 65 years 1:1:1 to receive either atezolizumab (1,200 mg) + carboplatin (area under the curve 6) + paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, or atezolizumab + carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m² every week), or carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel for four or six cycles. Patients in the first two arms (A and B) received atezolizumab maintenance therapy until loss of clinical benefit or progressive disease occurred, and those in latter arm (C) received best supportive care after completing the treatment cycles.

SOURCE: Cappuzzo F et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OS14.02 .

Prior antibiotic use may be associated with a reduced treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors, and worse outcomes, in patients with cancer, according to investigators.

In a prospective cohort study, researchers followed 196 patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice.

A total of 22 patients had been treated with a 7-day or less course of broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics in the 30 days prior to starting immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and 68 patients were concurrently taking broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics with their checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The analysis revealed that prior antibiotic therapy was associated with nearly a 100% greater likelihood of poor response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and significantly worse overall survival (2 vs. 26 months). Patients who had been on prior antibiotic therapy were also more likely to stop checkpoint inhibitor therapy because their disease had progressed, and were more likely to die of progressive disease while on checkpoint inhibitors.

However, concurrent antibiotic use did not appear to affect either treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors or overall survival.

The most common indication for both prior and concurrent antibiotic use was respiratory tract infections. Researchers examined whether cancer type might play a role in contributing to the association; for example, chronic airway disease in lung cancer might mean higher likelihood of antibiotic use but also lower treatment response and survival.

They found that the association between prior antibiotic therapy and overall survival was consistent across the 119 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, the 38 patients with melanoma, and the 39 patients with other tumor types.

The association was also independent of the class of antibiotic used, the patient’s performance status, and their corticosteroid use.

“Broad-spectrum ATB [antibiotic] use can cause prolonged disruption of the gut ecosystem and impair the effectiveness of the cytotoxic T-cell response against cancer, strengthening the biologic plausibility underlying the adverse effect of ATB therapy on immunotherapy outcomes,” wrote Dr. David J. Pinato, from Imperial College London, and coauthors in JAMA Oncology.

Addressing the question of whether comorbidities might be the mediating factor, the authors pointed out that the use of antibiotics during checkpoint inhibitor therapy – which was a potential indicator of patients’ status worsening during treatment – was not associated with reduced response to treatment or lower overall survival.

“Although provision of cATB [concurrent antibiotic] therapy appears to be safe in the context of immunotherapy, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons of prescribing broad-spectrum ATBs prior to ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] treatment,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Imperial College National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial College Tissue Bank, the Imperial Cancer Research U.K. Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund. Two authors reported receiving grant funding and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector unrelated to the study.

SOURCE: Pinato D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2785.

Prior antibiotic use may be associated with a reduced treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors, and worse outcomes, in patients with cancer, according to investigators.

In a prospective cohort study, researchers followed 196 patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice.

A total of 22 patients had been treated with a 7-day or less course of broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics in the 30 days prior to starting immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and 68 patients were concurrently taking broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics with their checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The analysis revealed that prior antibiotic therapy was associated with nearly a 100% greater likelihood of poor response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and significantly worse overall survival (2 vs. 26 months). Patients who had been on prior antibiotic therapy were also more likely to stop checkpoint inhibitor therapy because their disease had progressed, and were more likely to die of progressive disease while on checkpoint inhibitors.

However, concurrent antibiotic use did not appear to affect either treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors or overall survival.

The most common indication for both prior and concurrent antibiotic use was respiratory tract infections. Researchers examined whether cancer type might play a role in contributing to the association; for example, chronic airway disease in lung cancer might mean higher likelihood of antibiotic use but also lower treatment response and survival.

They found that the association between prior antibiotic therapy and overall survival was consistent across the 119 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, the 38 patients with melanoma, and the 39 patients with other tumor types.

The association was also independent of the class of antibiotic used, the patient’s performance status, and their corticosteroid use.

“Broad-spectrum ATB [antibiotic] use can cause prolonged disruption of the gut ecosystem and impair the effectiveness of the cytotoxic T-cell response against cancer, strengthening the biologic plausibility underlying the adverse effect of ATB therapy on immunotherapy outcomes,” wrote Dr. David J. Pinato, from Imperial College London, and coauthors in JAMA Oncology.

Addressing the question of whether comorbidities might be the mediating factor, the authors pointed out that the use of antibiotics during checkpoint inhibitor therapy – which was a potential indicator of patients’ status worsening during treatment – was not associated with reduced response to treatment or lower overall survival.

“Although provision of cATB [concurrent antibiotic] therapy appears to be safe in the context of immunotherapy, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons of prescribing broad-spectrum ATBs prior to ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] treatment,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Imperial College National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial College Tissue Bank, the Imperial Cancer Research U.K. Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund. Two authors reported receiving grant funding and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector unrelated to the study.

SOURCE: Pinato D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2785.

Prior antibiotic use may be associated with a reduced treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors, and worse outcomes, in patients with cancer, according to investigators.

In a prospective cohort study, researchers followed 196 patients with cancer who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in routine clinical practice.

A total of 22 patients had been treated with a 7-day or less course of broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics in the 30 days prior to starting immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, and 68 patients were concurrently taking broad-spectrum beta-lactam–based antibiotics with their checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

The analysis revealed that prior antibiotic therapy was associated with nearly a 100% greater likelihood of poor response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy (P less than .001) and significantly worse overall survival (2 vs. 26 months). Patients who had been on prior antibiotic therapy were also more likely to stop checkpoint inhibitor therapy because their disease had progressed, and were more likely to die of progressive disease while on checkpoint inhibitors.

However, concurrent antibiotic use did not appear to affect either treatment response to checkpoint inhibitors or overall survival.

The most common indication for both prior and concurrent antibiotic use was respiratory tract infections. Researchers examined whether cancer type might play a role in contributing to the association; for example, chronic airway disease in lung cancer might mean higher likelihood of antibiotic use but also lower treatment response and survival.

They found that the association between prior antibiotic therapy and overall survival was consistent across the 119 patients with non–small cell lung cancer, the 38 patients with melanoma, and the 39 patients with other tumor types.

The association was also independent of the class of antibiotic used, the patient’s performance status, and their corticosteroid use.

“Broad-spectrum ATB [antibiotic] use can cause prolonged disruption of the gut ecosystem and impair the effectiveness of the cytotoxic T-cell response against cancer, strengthening the biologic plausibility underlying the adverse effect of ATB therapy on immunotherapy outcomes,” wrote Dr. David J. Pinato, from Imperial College London, and coauthors in JAMA Oncology.

Addressing the question of whether comorbidities might be the mediating factor, the authors pointed out that the use of antibiotics during checkpoint inhibitor therapy – which was a potential indicator of patients’ status worsening during treatment – was not associated with reduced response to treatment or lower overall survival.

“Although provision of cATB [concurrent antibiotic] therapy appears to be safe in the context of immunotherapy, clinicians should carefully weigh the pros and cons of prescribing broad-spectrum ATBs prior to ICI [immune checkpoint inhibitor] treatment,” they wrote.

The study was supported by the Imperial College National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial College Tissue Bank, the Imperial Cancer Research U.K. Centre, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund. Two authors reported receiving grant funding and personal fees from the pharmaceutical sector unrelated to the study.

SOURCE: Pinato D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 12. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2785.

BARCELONA – Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) was not significantly associated with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 study.

In 293 patients with evaluable TMB data in KEYNOTE-189, including 207 who were treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 86 who received placebo plus chemotherapy, TMB as a continuous variable showed no significant association with either overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR), Marina C. Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved OS both in patients with TMB of 175 mutations/exome and greater and in those with TMB of fewer than 175 mutations/exome (hazard ratio for OS, 0.64 for both), and similar results were seen for PFS and ORR, Dr. Garassino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Similar results were also seen for those with tissue TMB of 150 mutations/exome or greater and those with fewer than 150 mutations/exome, she noted.

The double-blind KEYNOTE-189 study compared first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in 616 patients who were randomized 2:1 to the treatment arms, respectively, and showed that adding pembrolizumab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved OS (HR, 0.49), PFS (HR, 0.52), and ORR (47.6% vs. 18.9%). Benefit was observed in all analyzed subgroups, including patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tissue Polypeptide-specific (TPS) antigen of less than 1%, 1-49%, and 50% or greater, she noted.

In the current analysis, performed to assess the effect of tissue TMB on response rates, a similar benefit was seen in both TMB-high and -low subgroups.

“Our data suggest that tissue TMB may not help select patients who would have better outcomes with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and a platinum given as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” she concluded.

Similarly, an exploratory analysis of data from the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial – the first trial to show the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab given with chemotherapy – showed no association between tissue TMB and OS, PFS, or ORR in 70 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC who were treated with either pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed or with carboplatin and pemetrexed alone, Corey Langer, MD, reported at the conference.

“As you’re well aware,TMB has been widely evaluated as a biomarker for immunotherapy in advanced [NSCLC] and may identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Langer, professor of medicine and director of thoracic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we have very limited data on whether TMB is of any value as a biomarker for chemo, either alone or given with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.”

In this analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with a high response rate, regardless of tissue TMB status; in those with tissue TMB of 175 mutations/exome or greater and fewer than 175 mutations/exome, the response rates were 71% and 61%, respectively.

“So, tissue TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing was not significantly associated with efficacy for pembro and combination pem-carbo, or for chemotherapy alone, for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous [NSCLC], nor was there any significant association with PD-L1 expression,” he said. “Obviously an analysis of much larger datasets is needed to assess whether the benefit of pembro plus chemo relative to chemo alone differs in patients with TMB-high or TMB-low tumors,” he said.

For now, tissue TMB should not be used – “at least not yet” – in therapeutic decision making, he said, adding that it is important to distinguish between blood TMB and tissue TMB because the latter “may be more reflective of the entire tumor.”

Dr. Langer noted that he still thinks TMB has a potential role.

“We just haven’t figured it out yet,” he said.

Both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-021 were supported by Merck. Dr. Garassino and Dr. Langer reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCES: Garassino MC et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.06; Langer C et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.05.

.

BARCELONA – Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) was not significantly associated with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 study.

In 293 patients with evaluable TMB data in KEYNOTE-189, including 207 who were treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 86 who received placebo plus chemotherapy, TMB as a continuous variable showed no significant association with either overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR), Marina C. Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved OS both in patients with TMB of 175 mutations/exome and greater and in those with TMB of fewer than 175 mutations/exome (hazard ratio for OS, 0.64 for both), and similar results were seen for PFS and ORR, Dr. Garassino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Similar results were also seen for those with tissue TMB of 150 mutations/exome or greater and those with fewer than 150 mutations/exome, she noted.

The double-blind KEYNOTE-189 study compared first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in 616 patients who were randomized 2:1 to the treatment arms, respectively, and showed that adding pembrolizumab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved OS (HR, 0.49), PFS (HR, 0.52), and ORR (47.6% vs. 18.9%). Benefit was observed in all analyzed subgroups, including patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tissue Polypeptide-specific (TPS) antigen of less than 1%, 1-49%, and 50% or greater, she noted.

In the current analysis, performed to assess the effect of tissue TMB on response rates, a similar benefit was seen in both TMB-high and -low subgroups.

“Our data suggest that tissue TMB may not help select patients who would have better outcomes with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and a platinum given as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” she concluded.

Similarly, an exploratory analysis of data from the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial – the first trial to show the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab given with chemotherapy – showed no association between tissue TMB and OS, PFS, or ORR in 70 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC who were treated with either pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed or with carboplatin and pemetrexed alone, Corey Langer, MD, reported at the conference.

“As you’re well aware,TMB has been widely evaluated as a biomarker for immunotherapy in advanced [NSCLC] and may identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Langer, professor of medicine and director of thoracic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we have very limited data on whether TMB is of any value as a biomarker for chemo, either alone or given with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.”

In this analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with a high response rate, regardless of tissue TMB status; in those with tissue TMB of 175 mutations/exome or greater and fewer than 175 mutations/exome, the response rates were 71% and 61%, respectively.

“So, tissue TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing was not significantly associated with efficacy for pembro and combination pem-carbo, or for chemotherapy alone, for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous [NSCLC], nor was there any significant association with PD-L1 expression,” he said. “Obviously an analysis of much larger datasets is needed to assess whether the benefit of pembro plus chemo relative to chemo alone differs in patients with TMB-high or TMB-low tumors,” he said.

For now, tissue TMB should not be used – “at least not yet” – in therapeutic decision making, he said, adding that it is important to distinguish between blood TMB and tissue TMB because the latter “may be more reflective of the entire tumor.”

Dr. Langer noted that he still thinks TMB has a potential role.

“We just haven’t figured it out yet,” he said.

Both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-021 were supported by Merck. Dr. Garassino and Dr. Langer reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCES: Garassino MC et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.06; Langer C et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.05.

.

BARCELONA – Tissue tumor mutational burden (TMB) was not significantly associated with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 study and the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 study.

In 293 patients with evaluable TMB data in KEYNOTE-189, including 207 who were treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 86 who received placebo plus chemotherapy, TMB as a continuous variable showed no significant association with either overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate (ORR), Marina C. Garassino, MD, of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved OS both in patients with TMB of 175 mutations/exome and greater and in those with TMB of fewer than 175 mutations/exome (hazard ratio for OS, 0.64 for both), and similar results were seen for PFS and ORR, Dr. Garassino said at the conference, which is sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Similar results were also seen for those with tissue TMB of 150 mutations/exome or greater and those with fewer than 150 mutations/exome, she noted.

The double-blind KEYNOTE-189 study compared first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in 616 patients who were randomized 2:1 to the treatment arms, respectively, and showed that adding pembrolizumab to pemetrexed and platinum significantly improved OS (HR, 0.49), PFS (HR, 0.52), and ORR (47.6% vs. 18.9%). Benefit was observed in all analyzed subgroups, including patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tissue Polypeptide-specific (TPS) antigen of less than 1%, 1-49%, and 50% or greater, she noted.

In the current analysis, performed to assess the effect of tissue TMB on response rates, a similar benefit was seen in both TMB-high and -low subgroups.

“Our data suggest that tissue TMB may not help select patients who would have better outcomes with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and a platinum given as first-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” she concluded.

Similarly, an exploratory analysis of data from the open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-021 trial – the first trial to show the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab given with chemotherapy – showed no association between tissue TMB and OS, PFS, or ORR in 70 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC who were treated with either pembrolizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed or with carboplatin and pemetrexed alone, Corey Langer, MD, reported at the conference.

“As you’re well aware,TMB has been widely evaluated as a biomarker for immunotherapy in advanced [NSCLC] and may identify patients who are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Langer, professor of medicine and director of thoracic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “But we have very limited data on whether TMB is of any value as a biomarker for chemo, either alone or given with an immune checkpoint inhibitor.”

In this analysis, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with a high response rate, regardless of tissue TMB status; in those with tissue TMB of 175 mutations/exome or greater and fewer than 175 mutations/exome, the response rates were 71% and 61%, respectively.

“So, tissue TMB assessed by whole-exome sequencing was not significantly associated with efficacy for pembro and combination pem-carbo, or for chemotherapy alone, for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic nonsquamous [NSCLC], nor was there any significant association with PD-L1 expression,” he said. “Obviously an analysis of much larger datasets is needed to assess whether the benefit of pembro plus chemo relative to chemo alone differs in patients with TMB-high or TMB-low tumors,” he said.

For now, tissue TMB should not be used – “at least not yet” – in therapeutic decision making, he said, adding that it is important to distinguish between blood TMB and tissue TMB because the latter “may be more reflective of the entire tumor.”

Dr. Langer noted that he still thinks TMB has a potential role.

“We just haven’t figured it out yet,” he said.

Both KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-021 were supported by Merck. Dr. Garassino and Dr. Langer reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCES: Garassino MC et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.06; Langer C et al. WCLC 2019, Abstract OA04.05.

.