Treatment Decisions for Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Balancing Less With More?

The Impact of Preoperative Invasive Nodal Staging on Unexpected Mediastinal Upstaging in Early-Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative invasive nodal staging is standard of care for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Complications and delays in care are not negligible and diagnostic accuracy varies. In our system, invasive nodal staging is performed for clear radiographic indications (node > 1.0 cm short axis or standardized uptake value > 3.0, tumor > 4.0 cm). This study assessed whether unexpected mediastinal upstaging was less common in patients receiving preoperative invasive nodal staging.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated nodal upstaging, defined as pathological N2 or IIIA+ disease, based on receipt or non-receipt of invasive nodal staging. Clinical stage I-II NSCLC patients who underwent resection (2009-2019) were identified from our cancer registry. Stage and preoperative nodal staging information were confirmed through chart review. Associations between patient characteristics, invasive nodal staging receipt, and clinical to pathological stage changes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 2576 patients, 18.7% (n = 481) underwent invasive nodal staging. After resection, 6.2% of all patients had nodal upstaging and 24.9% had TNM upstaging. Only 0.3% (n = 9) were upstaged to N2 and 0.5% (n = 13) were upstaged to IIIA+. Lack of preoperative nodal sampling was not associated with N2 or IIIA+ upstaging. Findings were consistent in subanalyses of patients with surgical specimens meeting Commission on Cancer nodal sampling criteria and with clinical IB+ disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most patients did not undergo invasive nodal staging, <1% had unexpected N2 on surgical pathology. There was no association between lack of preoperative invasive nodal sampling and N2 nodal upstaging. Preoperative invasive nodal staging did not increase pathologic N2 nodal upstaging in early-stage NSCLC patients in our integrated health system.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy strategies for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Current evidence among special populations and future perspectives

About one third of patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) presents at diagnosis with localized or locally advanced disease amenable to curative surgical resection. Surgical operability refers to stage I to IIIA and selected stage IIIB NSCLC. One of the main challenges in the management of early-stage resectable NSCLC is the optimization of available therapeutic strategies to prevent local and distant disease relapse, thus improving survival outcomes. There is evidence supporting the clinical use of both adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapy-based strategies for resected/resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Available data from randomized phase III trials have led to the incorporation of several immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) into the international guidelines for early-stage NSCLC. Preclinical rationale of targeting specific subsets of T-cells by acting early on immune checkpoint receptors (e.g., PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4) is strong. Recent evidence is in favor of the neoadjuvant approach alone or as a part of perioperative strategy, demonstrating survival benefit. Combining neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy before surgery results in both pathologic complete response (pCR) and major pathologic response (MPR) improvement, and survival outcomes, with no major safety issues. In this review, we summarize the rationale behind neoadjuvant/perioperative immunotherapy strategies and, due to the clinical relevance of immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC, we provide current evidence of this cutting-edge approach among special populations including older adults, women, and oncogene addicted NSCLC. To conclude, we present future perspectives in the use of immunotherapy for operable NSCLC with a special focus on novel investigational combinations underway.

A lack of association between BMI and chemoimmunotherapy efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Secondary analysis of the IMpower150 and IMpower130 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have indicated that patients with high body mass index (BMI) may have favourable survival outcomes following treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). However, this evidence is limited by several factors, notably the minimal evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the use of categorised BMI with inconsistent cut point definitions, and minimal investigation of contemporary combination ICI therapy. Moreover, whether overweight and obese patients gain a larger benefit from contemporary frontline chemoimmunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear.

METHODS

This secondary analysis pooled individual patient data from the intention-to-treat population of the IMpower130 and IMpower150 RCTs comparing chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The potentially non-linear relationship between BMI and chemoimmunotherapy treatment effect was evaluated using Multivariable Fractional Polynomial Interaction (MFPI). As a sensitivity analysis, chemoimmunotherapy treatment effect (chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy) on survival was also estimated for each BMI subgroup defined by World Health Organisation classification. Exploratory analyses in the respective chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy cohort were undertaken to examine the survival outcomes among BMI subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 1282 patients were included. From the MFPI analysis, BMI was not significantly associated with chemoimmunotherapy treatment effect with respect to either OS (p = 0.71) or PFS (p = 0.35). This was supported by the sensitivity analyses that demonstrated no significant treatment effect improvement in OS/PFS among overweight or obese patients compared to normal weight patients (OS: normal BMI HR = 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, overweight HR = 0.78 95% CI 0.61-1.01, obese HR = 0.84 95% CI 0.59-1.20). Exploratory analyses further highlighted that survival outcomes were not significantly different across BMI subgroups in either the chemoimmunotherapy therapy cohort (Median OS: normal BMI 19.9 months, overweight 17.9 months, and obese 19.5 months, p = 0.7) or the chemotherapy cohort (Median OS: normal 14.1 months, overweight 15.9 months, and obese 16.7 months, p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

There was no association between high BMI (overweight or obese individuals) and enhanced chemoimmunotherapy treatment benefit in front-line treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. This contrasts with previous publications that showed a superior treatment benefit in overweight and obese patients treated with immunotherapy given without chemotherapy.