Patient-reported outcomes in advanced NSCLC before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Real-world data from the German prospective CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315)

Patients with lung cancer under treatment have been associated with a high risk of COVID-19 infection and potentially worse outcome, but real-world data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are rare. We assess patients' characteristics and PROs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in an advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort in Germany. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC from the prospective, multicentre, observational CRISP Registry (NCT02622581) were categorised as pre-pandemic (March 2019 to Feb 2020, n = 1621) and pandemic (March 2020 to Feb 2021, n = 1317). From baseline to month 15, patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed by FACT-L, anxiety and depression by PHQ-4. Association of pandemic status with time to deterioration (TTD) in QoL scales adjusted for potential covariates was estimated using Cox modelling. PROs were documented for 1166 patients (72%) in the pre-pandemic, 979 (74%) in the pandemic group. Almost 60% of patients were male, median age was 66 years, comorbidities occurred in 85%. Regarding HRQoL, mean-change-from-baseline plots hardly differed between both samples. Approximately 15%-21% of patients reported anxiety, about 19%-27% signs of depression. For the pandemic group, TTD was slightly, but statistically significantly, worse for the physical well-being-FACT-G subscale (HR 1.15 [95%CI 1.02-1.30]) and the anxiety-GAD-2 subscale (HR 1.14 [95%CI 1.01-1.29]). These prospectively collected real-world data provide valuable insights into PROs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in advanced NSCLC. For the patients, the pandemic seemed to be less of a burden than the disease itself, as there was a considerable proportion of patients with anxiety and depression in both groups.

Outcome of First-Line Treatment With Pembrolizumab According to KRAS/TP53 Mutational Status for Nonsquamous Programmed Death-Ligand 1-High (≥50%) NSCLC in the German National Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Programmed death-ligand 1 expression currently represents the only validated predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic NSCLC in the clinical routine, but it has limited value in distinguishing responses. Assessment of KRAS and TP53 mutations (mut) as surrogate for an immunosupportive tumor microenvironment (TME) might help to close this gap.

METHODS

A total of 696 consecutive patients with programmed death-ligand 1-high (≥50%), nonsquamous NSCLC, having received molecular testing within the German National Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer between 2017 and 2020, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than or equal to 1 and pembrolizumab as first-line palliative treatment, were included into this retrospective cohort analysis. Treatment efficacy and outcome according to KRAS/TP53 status were correlated with TME composition and gene expression analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas lung adenocarcinoma cohort.

RESULTS

Proportion of KRASmut and TP53mut was 53% (G12C 25%, non-G12C 28%) and 51%, respectively. In KRASmut patients, TP53 comutations increased response rates (G12C: 69.7% versus 46.5% [TP53mut versus wild-type (wt)], p = 0.004; non-G12C: 55.4% versus 39.5%, p = 0.03), progression-free survival (G12C: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, p = 0.009, non-G12C: HR = 0.7, p = 0.047), and overall survival (G12C: HR = 0.72, p = 0.16, non-G12C: HR = 0.56, p = 0.002), whereas no differences were observed in KRASwt patients. After a median follow-up of 41 months, G12C/TP53mut patients experienced the longest progression-free survival and overall survival (33.7 and 65.3 mo), which correlated with high tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte densities in the TME and up-regulation of interferon gamma target genes. Proinflammatory pathways according to TP53 status (mut versus wt) were less enhanced and not different in non-G12C and KRASwt, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

G12C/TP53 comutations identify a subset of patients with a very favorable long-term survival with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, mediated by highly active interferon gamma signaling in a proinflammatory TME.

Mobocertinib in Patients with EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (MOON): An International Real-World Safety and Efficacy Analysis

EGFR exon 20 (EGFR Ex20) insertion mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insensitive to traditional EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Mobocertinib is the only approved TKI specifically designed to target EGFR Ex20. We performed an international, real-world safety and efficacy analysis on patients with EGFR Ex20-positive NSCLC enrolled in a mobocertinib early access program. We explored the mechanisms of resistance by analyzing postprogression biopsies, as well as cross-resistance to amivantamab. Data from 86 patients with a median age of 67 years and a median of two prior lines of treatment were analyzed. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 95% of patients. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were reported in 38% of patients and included diarrhea (22%) and rash (8%). In 17% of patients, therapy was permanently discontinued, and two patients died due to TRAEs. Women were seven times more likely to discontinue treatment than men. In the overall cohort, the objective response rate to mobocertinib was 34% (95% CI, 24-45). The response rate in treatment-naïve patients was 27% (95% CI, 8-58). The median progression-free and overall survival was 5 months (95% CI, 3.5-6.5) and 12 months (95% CI, 6.8-17.2), respectively. The intracranial response rate was limited (13%), and one-third of disease progression cases involved the brain. Mobocertinib also showed antitumor activity following EGFR Ex20-specific therapy and vice versa. Potential mechanisms of resistance to mobocertinib included amplifications in MET, PIK3CA, and NRAS. Mobocertinib demonstrated meaningful efficacy in a real-world setting but was associated with considerable gastrointestinal and cutaneous toxicity.

Sotorasib in KRAS G12C-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter real-world experience from the compassionate use program in Germany

BACKGROUND

Sotorasib is a first-in-class KRAS p.G12C-inhibitor that has entered clinical trials in pretreated patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in 2018. First response rates were promising in the CodeBreaK trials. It remains unclear whether response to sotorasib and outcomes differ in a real-world setting when including patients underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

Patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced or metastatic NSCLC received sotorasib within the German multicenter sotorasib compassionate use program between 2020 to 2022. Data on efficacy, tolerability, and survival were analyzed in the full cohort and in subgroups of special interest such as co-occurring mutations and across PD-L1 expression levels.

RESULTS

We analyzed 163 patients who received sotorasib after a median of two treatment lines (range, 0 to 7). Every fourth patient had a poor performance status and 38% had brain metastases (BM). The objective response rate was 38.7%. The median overall survival was 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not reached). Median real-world (rw) progression-free survival was 4.8 months (9% CI, 3.9 to 5.9). Dose reductions and permanent discontinuation were necessary in 35 (21.5%) and 7 (4.3%) patients, respectively. Efficacy seems to be influenced by PD-L1 expression and a co-occurring KEAP1 mutation. KEAP1 was associated with an inferior survival. Other factors such as BM, STK11, and TP53 mutations had no impact on response and survival.

CONCLUSION

First results from a real-world population confirm promising efficacy of sotorasib for the treatment of advanced KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC. Patients with co-occurring KEAP1 mutations seem to derive less benefit.

Checkpoint Inhibitor Monotherapy in Potentially Trial-Eligible or Trial-Ineligible Patients With Metastatic NSCLC in the German Prospective CRISP Registry Real-World Cohort (AIO-TRK-0315)

Introduction

Patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical practice may often not meet the strict inclusion criteria of clinical trials. Our aim was to assess the trial eligibility of patients with mNSCLC treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy in real-world and to compare the outcome of "trial-ineligible" and "potentially trial-eligible" patients.

Methods

Data from the prospective, clinical research platform CRISP were used to compare patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% tumors treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy who are deemed either "potentially trial-eligible" or "trial-ineligible" according to inclusion and exclusion criteria of the registrational studies (KEYNOTE-024 and -042).

Results

Of 746 patients included, 343 patients (46.0%) were classified as "trial-ineligible" and had significantly worse outcomes compared with "potentially trial-eligible" patients (n = 403, 54.0%): median progression-free survival: 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2-8.4) versus 10.3 (95% CI: 8.4-13.8) months, hazard ratio (trial-ineligible versus potentially trial-eligible) of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.19-1.72), p less than 0.001; median overall survival: 15.9 (95% CI: 11.4-20.3) versus 25.3 (95% CI: 19.8-30.4) months, hazard ratio of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.10-1.67), p equals 0.004.

Conclusions

Our data reveal that a considerable proportion of patients with mNSCLC are not eligible to participate in a clinical trial and were found to have worse outcomes than potentially trial-eligible patients, whose outcomes were comparable with those obtained from pivotal clinical trials. This is of substantial clinical relevance for physicians discussing outcomes to be expected with their patients and stresses the need for real-world effectiveness analyses.

Evolutionary trajectories of small cell lung cancer under therapy

The evolutionary processes that underlie the marked sensitivity of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) to chemotherapy and rapid relapse are unknown1-3. Here we determined tumour phylogenies at diagnosis and throughout chemotherapy and immunotherapy by multiregion sequencing of 160 tumours from 65 patients. Treatment-naive SCLC exhibited clonal homogeneity at distinct tumour sites, whereas first-line platinum-based chemotherapy led to a burst in genomic intratumour heterogeneity and spatial clonal diversity. We observed branched evolution and a shift to ancestral clones underlying tumour relapse. Effective radio- or immunotherapy induced a re-expansion of founder clones with acquired genomic damage from first-line chemotherapy. Whereas TP53 and RB1 alterations were exclusively part of the common ancestor, MYC family amplifications were frequently not constituents of the founder clone. At relapse, emerging subclonal mutations affected key genes associated with SCLC biology, and tumours harbouring clonal CREBBP/EP300 alterations underwent genome duplications. Gene-damaging TP53 alterations and co-alterations of TP53 missense mutations with TP73, CREBBP/EP300 or FMN2 were significantly associated with shorter disease relapse following chemotherapy. In summary, we uncover key processes of the genomic evolution of SCLC under therapy, identify the common ancestor as the source of clonal diversity at relapse and show central genomic patterns associated with sensitivity and resistance to chemotherapy.

Association between treatment and improvements in overall survival of patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer since 2011: A study in the United States, Canada, and Germany using retrospective real-world databases

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in three countries between 2011 and 2020.

METHODS

Three databases (US, Canada, Germany) were used to identify incident aNSCLC patients. OS was assessed from the date of incident aNSCLC diagnosis and, for patients who received at least a first line of therapy (1LOT), from the date of 1LOT initiation. In multivariable analyses, we analyzed the influence of index year and type of prescribed treatment on OS.

FINDINGS

We included 51,318 patients with an incident aNSCLC diagnosis. The percentage of patients treated with a 1LOT differed substantially between countries, whereas the number of patients receiving immunotherapies/targeted treatments increased over time in all three countries. Median OS from the date of incident diagnosis was 9.9 months in the United States vs. 4.1 months in Canada. When measured from the start of 1LOT, patients had a median OS of 10.7 months in the United States, 10.9 months in Canada, and 10.9 months in Germany. OS from the start of 1LOT improved in all three countries from 2011 to 2020 by approximately 3 to 4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed continuous improvement in OS among patients receiving at least a 1LOT from 2011 to 2020 was likely driven by improved care and changes in the treatment landscape. The difference in the proportion of patients receiving a 1LOT in the observed countries requires further investigation.

Pralsetinib in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: A plain language summary of the ARROW study

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This is a summary of a research study called ARROW, which tested a medicine called pralsetinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), thyroid cancer, and other advanced solid tumours caused by a change in a gene called RET. For the purposes of this summary, only patients with NSCLC with a change in RET called fusion (RET fusion+) are highlighted.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

In total, 281 patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC had taken part in this study across the USA, Europe, and Asia. Patients were asked to take four pills (adding up to 400 mg) of pralsetinib each day and were checked for any changes in their tumours, as well as for any side effects. After an average of 8 months of treatment with pralsetinib, 72% of previously untreated patients and 59% of patients who had previously received chemotherapy had considerable shrinkage of their tumours. Among 10 patients with tumours which had spread to the brain (all of whom had received previous treatments), 70% had their tumours shrink greatly in the brain after treatment with pralsetinib. On average, patients lived with little to no tumour growth for 16 months. In previously untreated patients, the most common severe side effects that were considered related to pralsetinib treatment were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils and lymphocytes), increased blood pressure, and an increase in a blood protein called creatine phosphokinase. In previously treated patients, the severe side effects were decreased white blood cells (neutrophils, lymphocytes, and leukocytes), increased blood pressure, and low levels of red blood cells. In both untreated and previously treated patients, the most common severe side effects that required hospital attention were lung inflammation/swelling causing shortness of breath (pneumonitis) and lung infection (pneumonia).

WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?

Overall, the ARROW study showed that pralsetinib was effective in shrinking tumours in patients with RET fusion+ NSCLC regardless of previous treatment history. The recorded side effects were expected in patients receiving this type of medicine. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03037385 (ARROW) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

[Prevention, Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-up of Lung Cancer - Interdisciplinary Guideline of the German Respiratory Society and the German Cancer Society - Abridged Version]

The current S3 Lung Cancer Guidelines are edited with fundamental changes to the previous edition based on the dynamic influx of information to this field:The recommendations include de novo a mandatory case presentation for all patients with lung cancer in a multidisciplinary tumor board before initiation of treatment, furthermore CT-Screening for asymptomatic patients at risk (after federal approval), recommendations for incidental lung nodule management , molecular testing of all NSCLC independent of subtypes, EGFR-mutations in resectable early stage lung cancer in relapsed or recurrent disease, adjuvant TKI-therapy in the presence of common EGFR-mutations, adjuvant consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in resected lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, obligatory evaluation of PD-L1-status, consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibition after radiochemotherapy in patients with PD-L1-pos. tumor, adjuvant consolidation treatment with checkpoint inhibition in patients withPD-L1 ≥ 50% stage IIIA and treatment options in PD-L1 ≥ 50% tumors independent of PD-L1status and targeted therapy and treatment option immune chemotherapy in first line SCLC patients.Based on the current dynamic status of information in this field and the turnaround time required to implement new options, a transformation to a "living guideline" was proposed.

Rationale and Design of the Phase II ANTELOPE Study of Atezolizumab, Carboplatin and nab-Paclitaxel vs. Pembrolizumab, Platinum and Pemetrexed in TTF-1 Negative, Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma (AIO-TRK-0122)

INTRODUCTION

Pemetrexed-based immunochemotherapy represents an established standard of care as first line treatment for non-oncogenic driven metastatic non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma (NSCLC/ADC). However, retrospective analyses revealed better outcomes for pemetrexed-free regimens compared to pemetrexed-containing regimens in patients with thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1) negative NSCLC/ADC. The multicenter, phase II, randomized, open-label ANTELOPE trial evaluates whether atezolizumab, carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel is superior to pembrolizumab, cis-/carboplatin and pemetrexed in TTF-1 negative NSCLC/ADC.

METHODS

Eligible participants are ≥18 years of age, with histologically or cytologically confirmed, treatment-naïve stage IV TTF-1 negative NSCLC/ADC without actionable genomic alterations or PD-L1-overexpression (TPS ≥50%) and will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to pemetrexed-free (group A) vs. pemetrexed-based (group B) immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint of this trial is overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Enrollment will start in Q2 2023 at 30 sites in Germany with a planned inclusion of 136 participants.

CONCLUSION

ANTELOPE will provide efficacy outcomes of the current standard-of-care for the specific subset of TTF-1 negative NSCLC/ADC in a head-to-head comparison of approved immunochemotherapy regimens.

Radiation and Dose-densification of R-CHOP in Aggressive B-cell Lymphoma With Intermediate Prognosis: The UNFOLDER Study

UNFOLDER (Unfavorable Young Low-Risk Densification of R-Chemo Regimens) is an international phase-3 trial in patients 18-60 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and intermediate prognosis defined by age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) of 0 and bulky disease (≥7.5 cm) or aaIPI of 1. In a 2 × 2 factorial design patients were randomized to 6× R-CHOP-14 or 6× R-CHOP-21 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prediso[lo]ne) and to consolidation radiotherapy to extralymphatic and bulky disease or observation. Response was assessed according to the standardized response criteria published in 1999, not including F-18 fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET). Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). A total of 695 of 700 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. Totally 467 patients qualified for radiotherapy of whom 305 patients were randomized to receive radiotherapy (R-CHOP-21: 155; R-CHOP-14: 150) and 162 to observation (R-CHOP-21: 81, R-CHOP-14: 81). Two hundred twenty-eight patients not qualifying for radiotherapy were randomized for R-CHOP-14 versus R-CHOP-21. After a median observation of 66 months 3-year EFS was superior in the radiotherapy-arm versus observation-arm (84% versus 68%; P = 0.0012), due to a lower rate of partial responses (PR) (2% versus 11%). PR often triggered additional treatment, mostly radiotherapy. No significant difference was observed in progression-free survival (PFS) (89% versus 81%; P = 0.22) and overall survival (OS) (93% versus 93%; P = 0.51). Comparing R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21 EFS, PFS and OS were not different. Patients randomized to radiotherapy had a superior EFS, largely due to a lower PR rate requiring less additional treatment (NCT00278408, EUDRACT 2005-005218-19).

Radiation and Dose-densification of R-CHOP in Primary Mediastinal B-cell Lymphoma: Subgroup Analysis of the UNFOLDER Trial

UNFOLDER (NCT00278408, EUDRACT 2005-005218-19) is a phase-3 trial in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and intermediate prognosis, including primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). In a 2 × 2 factorial design, patients were randomized to 6× R-CHOP-14 or R-CHOP-21 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prediso(lo)ne) and to consolidation radiotherapy to extralymphatic/bulky disease or observation. Response was assessed according to the standardized criteria from 1999, which did not include F-18 fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET) scans. Primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). A subgroup of 131 patients with PMBCLs was included (median age, 34 y; 54% female, 79% elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), 20% LDH >2× upper limit of normal [ULN], and 24% extralymphatic involvement). Eighty-two (R-CHOP-21: 43 and R-CHOP-14: 39) patients were assigned to radiotherapy and 49 (R-CHOP-21: 27, R-CHOP-14: 22) to observation. The 3-year EFS was superior in radiotherapy arm (94% [95% confidence interval (CI), 89-99] versus 78% [95% CI, 66-89]; P = 0.0069), due to a lower rate of partial responses (PRs) (2% versus 10%). PR triggered additional treatment, mostly radiotherapy (n = 5; PR: 4; complete response/unconfirmed complete response: 1). No significant differences were observed in progression-free survival (PFS) (95% [95% CI, 90-100] versus 90% [95% CI, 81-98]; P = 0.25) nor in overall survival (OS) (98% [95% CI, 94-100] versus 96% [95% CI, 90-100]; P = 0.64). Comparing R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21, EFS, PFS, and OS were not different. A prognostic marker for adverse outcome was elevated LDH >2× ULN (EFS: P = 0.016; PFS: P = 0.0049; OS: P = 0.0014). With the limitation of a pre-PET-era trial, the results suggest a benefit of radiotherapy only for patients responding to R-CHOP with PR. PMBCL treated with R-CHOP have a favorable prognosis with a 3-year OS of 97%.

Early versus delayed tumor specific therapy and survival in patients with lung cancer: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

The timing of tumor specific palliative therapy and its influence on the survival of patients with stage IV lung cancer remains unclear.

METHODS

375 patients with stage IV lung cancer who experienced an early or delayed therapy (early or delayed therapy group; TG) were investigated using histology and ECOG performance score-related (ECOG-PS) subgroups. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used for survival analyses.

RESULTS

Patients in the early TG had a significantly shorter median overall survival (OS) than those in the delayed TG (6 vs. 11 months). Patients with an ECOG-PS of ≥1 were significantly more present in the early than in the delayed TG (66.8% vs. 51.9%). But an early therapy was also significantly associated to a shorter median OS in ECOG-matched subgroups (ECOG-PS of 0; 7 vs. 23 months, ECOG >1 ; 6 vs. 8 months). An early therapy was associated to a significantly worse median OS in histological subgroups (NSCLC; 5 vs. 11 months, SCLC; 7 vs. 11 months) and was an independent risk factor in uni- and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

An early initiation of cancer specific therapy was associated with a shorter survival time in palliative lung cancer patients, independent of the ECOG-PS and histological subtype.

Clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid biopsy application in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a modelling approach

PURPOSE

Targeted therapies are effective therapeutic approaches in advanced stages of NSCLC and require precise molecular profiling to identify oncogenic drivers. Differential diagnosis on a molecular level contributes to clinical decision making. Liquid biopsy (LB) use has demonstrated its potential to serve as an alternative to tissue biopsy (TB) particularly in cases where tissue sampling is not feasible or insufficient. We aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-based LB use (molecular multigene testing) according to German care guidelines for metastatic NSCLC.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and clinical benefits associated with the use of LB as an add-on to TB according to the guidelines for NSCLC patients. Usual care TB served as comparator. A microsimulation model was used to simulate a cohort of non-squamous NSCLC patients stage IV. The parameters used for modelling were obtained from the literature and from the prospective German CRISP registry ("Clinical Research platform Into molecular testing, treatment, and outcome of non-Small cell lung carcinoma Patients"). For each pathway, average direct medical costs, and QALYs gained per patient were used for calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

RESULTS

The use of LB as an add-on was costlier (€144,981 vs. €144,587) but more effective measured in QALYs (1.20 vs. 1.19) for the care pathway of NSCLC patients (ICER €53,909/QALY). Cost-effectiveness was shown for EGFR-mutated patients (ICER €-13,247/QALY).

CONCLUSION

Including LB as an add-on into the care pathway of advanced NSCLC has positive clinical effects in terms of QALYs accompanied by a moderate cost-effectiveness.

An Adjusted Treatment Comparison Comparing Amivantamab Versus Real-World Clinical Practice in Europe and the United States for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Exon 20 Insertion Mutations

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with Exon 20 insertion mutations (Exon20ins) have poor prognoses, exacerbated by a previous lack of specific treatment guidelines and unmet need for targeted therapies. Amivantamab, an EGFR and MET bispecific antibody, demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC with Exon20ins following platinum-based therapy in CHRYSALIS (NCT02609776; Cohort D+). Since CHRYSALIS was single-arm, individual patient data (IPD)-based adjusted analyses versus similar patients in real-world clinical practice (RWCP) were conducted to generate comparative evidence.

METHODS

RWCP cohorts were derived from seven European and US real-world sources, comprising patients fulfilling CHRYSALIS Cohort D+ eligibility criteria. Amivantamab was compared with a basket of RWCP treatments. Differences in prognostic characteristics were adjusted for using inverse probability weighting (IPW; average treatment effect among the treated [ATT]). Balance between cohorts was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Overall response rate (ORR; investigator- [INV] and independent review committee-assessed [IRC]), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS; INV and IRC) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT) were compared. Binary and time-to-event endpoints were analyzed using weighted logistic regression and proportional hazards regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Pre-adjustment, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. IPW ATT-adjustment improved comparability, giving closely matched characteristics. ORR (INV) was 36.8% for amivantamab versus 17.0% for the adjusted EU + US cohort (response rate ratio [RR]: 2.16). Median OS, PFS (INV) and TTNT were 22.77 versus 12.52 months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47; p < 0.0001), 6.93 versus 4.17 months (HR: 0.55; p < 0.0001) and 12.42 versus 5.36 months (HR: 0.44; p < 0.0001) for amivantamab versus the adjusted EU + US cohort, respectively. Results were consistent versus EU- and US-only cohorts, and when using IRC assessment.

CONCLUSION

Adjusted comparisons demonstrated significantly improved outcomes for amivantamab versus RWCP, highlighting the value of amivantamab in addressing unmet need in patients with advanced EGFR Exon20ins NSCLC following platinum-based therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CHRYSALIS: NCT02609776.

Prognostic factors in nonsmall cell lung cancer: insights from the German CRISP registry

INTRODUCTION

Understanding prognosis, especially long-term outcome, in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crucial to inform patients, guide treatment and plan supportive and palliative care.

METHODS

Prognostic factors influencing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 2082 patients with wild-type (WT)-NSCLC (629 M1a, 249 M1b, 1204 M1c) are reported. Patients were included in the prospective German CRISP registry recruiting in >150 centres. Analysis for pre-therapeutic factors was based on results from Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Current M-descriptors of the Union for International Cancer Control-8 staging system were validated: M1a and M1b patients had significantly longer median time to events compared to M1c (OS/PFS 16.4/7.2 months, 17.8/6.7 months and 10.9/5.4 months, respectively). OS and PFS were influenced by number and location of metastatic organ systems. M1c and four or more metastatic organs involved had shorter OS and PFS than M1c with one to three organs (OS hazard ratio (HR) 1.69, p<0.001; PFS HR 1.81, p<0.001). M1b-liver metastases had shorter OS/PFS than M1b involving other organs (OS HR 2.70, p=0.006; PFS HR 2.48, p=0.007). Based on number of involved organs (orgsys) and liver metastases, two risk groups (low-risk: M1a, M1b-non-liver, M1c-1-3-orgsys-non-liver; high-risk: M1c-liver, M1b-liver, M1c-4+-orgsys) with significantly different prognoses could be amalgamated (median OS/PFS 14.3/6.5 months and 7.7/4.1 months, respectively). Other favourable factors were female gender and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group stage 0, with age showing no impact. Those with T1- or N0-status were associated with longer OS than T2-4 or N2-3.

CONCLUSION

In this large observational dataset, we further defined factors for outcome in WT-NSCLC, including increased number of involved metastatic organ systems and liver metastases, as those with overall poorer prognosis and reduced survival chance.

Efficacy and Safety of Brigatinib Compared With Crizotinib in Asian vs. Non-Asian Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic ALK-Inhibitor-Naive ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Final Results From the Phase III ALTA-1L Study

BACKGROUND

Brigatinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in crizotinib-refractory and ALK inhibitor-naive settings. This analysis assessed brigatinib in Asian vs. non-Asian patients from the first-line ALTA-1L trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a subgroup analysis from the phase III ALTA-1L trial of brigatinib vs. crizotinib in ALK inhibitor-naive ALK+ NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Secondary endpoints included confirmed objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in the overall population and BIRC-assessed intracranial ORR and PFS in patients with brain metastases.

RESULTS

Of the 275 randomized patients, 108 were Asian. Brigatinib showed consistent superiority in BIRC-assessed PFS vs. crizotinib in Asian (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.20-0.59]; log-rank P = .0001; median 24.0 vs. 11.1 months) and non-Asian (HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.38-0.84]; log-rank P = .0041; median 24.7 vs. 9.4 months) patients. Results were consistent with investigator-assessed PFS and BIRC-assessed intracranial PFS. Brigatinib was well tolerated. Toxicity profiles and dose modification rates were similar between Asian and non-Asian patients.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy with brigatinib was consistently better than with crizotinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-+ NSCLC. There were no clinically notable differences in overall safety in Asian vs. non-Asian patients.

Transportability of Overall Survival Estimates From US to Canadian Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Implications for Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment

IMPORTANCE

The external validity of survival outcomes derived from clinical practice data from US patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known and is of potential importance because it may be used to support regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment outside of the US.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether overall survival (OS) estimates for a selected group of patients with advanced NSCLC from a large US clinical practice database are transportable to Canadian patients receiving the same systemic therapies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study used transportability analysis to assess whether adjustment for pretreatment characteristics of eligible patient cohorts could reliably approximate OS estimated from US-based samples to Canadian populations. A total of 17 432 eligible adult patients who were diagnosed de novo with advanced NSCLC on or after January 1, 2011, were included in the analysis and followed up until September 30, 2020. Because data on race and ethnicity were available in the US database but not the Canadian database and because racial and ethnic distribution was likely to be similar between US and Canadian patients, these characteristics were not analyzed.

EXPOSURES

Initiation of platinum-doublet chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

OS measured from the time of initiation of the respective treatment regimen.

RESULTS

Among 17 432 eligible patients, 15 669 patients from the US and 1763 patients from Canada were included in the analysis. Of those, 11 863 patients (sample size-weighted estimates of mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.3] years; 6606 [55.7%] male; 10 100 from the US and 1763 from Canada) were included in the subset of patients with complete data for baseline covariates. A total of 13 532 US patients received first-line chemotherapy, and 2137 received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. Of those, 8447 patients (62.4%) in the first-line chemotherapy group and 1653 patients (77.3%) in the first-line pembrolizumab group had complete data on baseline covariates for outcome model estimation. A total of 1476 Canadian patients who received first-line chemotherapy and 287 patients who received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy were identified from the target population. After standardization to baseline patient covariates in the Canadian cohorts, transported OS estimates revealed a less than 5% mean absolute difference from the observed OS in the target population (0.56% over 60 months of follow-up in the first-line chemotherapy group and 4.54% over 30 months of follow-up in the first-line pembrolizumab group). Negative control analysis using a mismatched outcome model revealed a 6.64% discrepancy and an incompatible survival curve shape. The results were robust to assumptions of random missingness for baseline covariates, to unadjusted differences in baseline metastases and comorbidities, and to differences in the standard of care between the US and Canada related to administration of second-line anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 immunotherapy for patients who initiated first-line chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this cohort study suggest that, under specific circumstances, OS estimates from US clinical practice data can be adjusted using baseline clinical characteristics to closely approximate OS in selected groups of Canadian patients with advanced NSCLC. These results may have implications for regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment in target populations outside of the US.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making

Background: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. Study Design: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. Methods: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. Results: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. Conclusions: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

Was können Register leisten?

Hintergrund

Register sind strukturierte Datensammlungen einer definierten Gruppe von Patienten. Registerdaten aus der Routineversorgung können zur Beantwortung zahlreicher wissenschaftlicher und praxisrelevanter Fragestellungen herangezogen werden.

Ziel der Arbeit

Ziel der vorliegenden Übersichtsarbeit ist ein Einblick in Anwendungsbereiche von Registerdaten.

Material und Methoden

Drei zentrale Anwendungsbereiche werden beispielhaft erläutert basierend auf einer explorativen Literaturrecherche.

Ergebnisse

Registerdaten schaffen Transparenz, indem sie Aufschluss über die Routineversorgung (z. B. die Anwendungen und Wirksamkeit von Therapien unter Alltagsbedingungen) geben und dienen somit der Qualitätssicherung. Sie ermöglichen Aussagen zu Patienten, die an randomisierten klinischen Prüfungen, dem Standard in der klinischen Arzneimittelforschung, nicht teilnehmen können (z. B. ältere Patienten mit Begleiterkrankungen). Sie ermöglichen die Langzeitbeobachtung von Erkrankungsverläufen und das Identifizieren von seltenen Nebenwirkungen. Des Weiteren können Registerdaten zur Versorgungsforschung, v. a. zur Hypothesengenerierung genutzt werden. So können Fragen zur optimalen Therapie bestimmter Patientengruppen, zur Wirksamkeit von Therapien, für die es keine vergleichenden Daten aus klinischen Prüfungen gibt oder auch zu Risikoprofilen von Patienten untersucht werden. Ein neueres Anwendungsgebiet ist außerdem die Verwendung von Registerdaten im Rahmen der Zulassung und Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln.

Schlussfolgerung

Viele Fragen rund um die optimale Versorgung von Patienten können mit randomisierten kontrollierten Prüfungen allein nicht beantwortet werden. Qualitätsgesicherte Daten aus prospektiven Registern können diese Lücke schließen.

Needs of Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Immunotherapy and Acceptance of Digital and Sensor-Based Scenarios for Monitoring Symptoms at Home—A Qualitative-Explorative Study

Background: The development of immunotherapy in the treatment for lung cancer has changed the outlook for both patients and health care practitioners. However, reporting and management of side effects are crucial to ensure effectiveness and safety of treatment. The aim of this study was to learn about the subjective experiences of patients with lung cancer receiving immunotherapy and to explore their potential acceptance of digital and sensor-based systems for monitoring treatment-related symptoms at home. Methods: A qualitative-explorative interview study with patients with lung cancer (n = 21) applying qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants had trouble to classify and differentiate between symptoms they experienced and it seemed challenging to assess whether symptoms are serious enough to be reported and to figure out the right time to report symptoms to health care practitioners. We identified four basic needs: (1) the need to be informed, (2) the need for a trustful relationship, (3) the need to be taken seriously, and (4) the need for needs-oriented treatment concepts. The idea of digital and sensor-based monitoring initially provoked rejection, but participants expressed more differentiated attitudes during the interviews, which could be integrated into a preliminary model to explain the acceptance of digital and sensor-based monitoring scenarios. Conclusions: Supporting lung cancer patients and their health care providers in communicating about treatment-related symptoms is important. Technology-based monitoring systems are considered to be potentially beneficial. However, in view of the many unfulfilled information needs and the unsatisfactory reporting of symptoms, it must be critically questioned what these systems can and should compensate for, and where the limits of such monitoring lie.

Use of algorithms for identifying patients in a German claims database: learnings from a lung cancer case

Background

The analysis of statutory health insurance (SHI) data is a little-used approach for understanding treatment and care as well as resource use of lung cancer (LC) patients in Germany. The aims of this observational, retrospective, longitudinal analysis of structured data were to analyze the healthcare situation of LC patients in Germany based on routine data from SHI funds, to develop an algorithm that sheds light on LC types (non-small cell / NSCLC vs. small cell / SCLC), and to gain new knowledge to improve needs-based care.

Methods

Anonymized billing data of approximately four million people with SHI were analyzed regarding ICD-10 (German modification), documented medical interventions based on the outpatient SHI Uniform Assessment Standard Tariff (EBM) or the inpatient Operations and Procedure Code (OPS), and the dispensing of prescription drugs to outpatients (ATC classification). The study included patients who were members of 64 SHI funds between Jan-1st, 2015 and Dec-31st, 2016 and who received the initial diagnosis of LC in 2015 and 2016.

Results

The analysis shows that neither the cancer type nor the cancer stage can be unambiguously described by the ICD-10 coding. Furthermore, an assignment based on the prescribed medication provides only limited information: many of the drugs are either approved for both LC types or are used off-label, making it difficult to assign them to a specific LC type. Overall, 25% of the LC patients were unambiguously identifiable as NSCLC vs SCLC based on the ICD-10 code, the drug therapy, and the billing data.

Conclusions

The current coding system appears to be of limited suitability for drawing conclusions about LC and therefore the SHI patient population. This makes it difficult to analyze the healthcare data with the aim of gathering new knowledge to improve needs-based care. The approach chosen for this study did not allow for development of a LC differentiation algorithm based on the available healthcare data. However, a better overview of patient specific needs could make it possible to modify the range of services provided by the SHI funds. From this perspective, it makes sense, in a first step, to refine the ICD-10 system to facilitate NSCLC vs. SCLC classification.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07982-8.

Addressing challenges with real-world synthetic control arms to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of Pralsetinib in non-small cell lung cancer

As advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) is being increasingly divided into rare oncogene-driven subsets, conducting randomised trials becomes challenging. Using real-world data (RWD) to construct control arms for single-arm trials provides an option for comparative data. However, non-randomised treatment comparisons have the potential to be biased and cause concern for decision-makers. Using the example of pralsetinib from a RET fusion-positive aNSCLC single-arm trial (NCT03037385), we demonstrate a relative survival benefit when compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy RWD cohorts. Quantitative bias analyses show that results for the RWD-trial comparisons are robust to data missingness, potential poorer outcomes in RWD and residual confounding. Overall, the study provides evidence in favour of pralsetinib as a first-line treatment for RET fusion-positive aNSCLC. The quantification of potential bias performed in this study can be used as a template for future studies of this nature.

Real-world data (RWD) based control arms provide an option to compare the effectiveness of single-arm trials. By performing multiple quantitative bias analyses to alleviate concerns about trial-RWD comparability, here the authors show that the RET inhibitor pralsetinib provides survival benefit in patients with RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer from the ARROW single-arm trial, (NCT03037385) when compared to pembrolizumab monotherapy and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy RWD cohorts.

Amivantamab and lazertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung (NSCLC) after progression on osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy: Updated results from CHRYSALIS-2

9006

Background: Initial results with the amivantamab (ami) and lazertinib (laz) regimen showed encouraging efficacy in patients (pts) whose disease progressed after standard-of-care osimertinib (osi) and platinum-based chemotherapy (pt-chemo; Shu Ann Oncol 2021; 32:S949-1039; 1193MO). We present updated results of this population (Cohort A) from the CHRYSALIS-2 study (NCT04077463). Methods: Cohort A evaluated ami and laz in pts with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R NSCLC whose disease progressed on 1st/2nd-line osi followed by pt-chemo as last line of therapy (target population, n=106) and among a more heavily-pretreated population (n=56) whose disease progressed after osi and pt-chemo ± other therapies without regard to number and sequence of these therapies. Pts received 1050 mg IV ami (1400 mg, ≥80 kg) + 240 mg oral laz. Investigator (INV)- and blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed response per RECIST v1.1 is reported for efficacy-evaluable pts, defined as pts who initiated study treatment on or before 17 Mar 2021, allowing for ≥6 mo of follow-up for response durability. Results: As of 6 Nov 2021, 162 pts were enrolled in Cohort A (median 62 y, 65% women, 61% Asian, median 3 [range, 2–14] prior lines). Median time between last osi treatment to first dose of ami + laz was 6.3 mo and 2.0 mo for the target and heavily-pretreated populations, respectively. Of 50 efficacy-evaluable pts in the target population, the overall response rate (ORR) by BICR was 36% (95% CI, 23–51), with 1 complete response (CR) and 17 partial responses (PRs), and the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 58% (95% CI, 43–72); full results for all enrolled pts will be reported at the meeting. Median duration of response (mDOR) was not reached based on BICR. At a median follow-up of 8.3 mo, 7 responders (39%) have achieved a DOR lasting ≥6 mo by BICR. INV-assessed responses were consistent with BICR. Of 56 efficacy-evaluable pts in the heavily-pretreated population (8.7-mo median follow-up), ORR by INV was 29% (95% CI, 17–42), with 1 CR and 15 PRs. CBR was 55% (95% CI, 42–69) and mDOR was 8.6 mo (95% CI, 4.2–NR). BICR results are pending. Preliminary evidence of CNS antitumor activity was reported among 8 pts with baseline brain lesions (7 non-target, 1 target) who had not received radiation within 1 year prior to study enrollment. Most frequent adverse events (AE) were infusion-related reaction (65%), paronychia (49%), rash (41%), and stomatitis (39%). Most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were infusion-related reactions (7%), acneiform dermatitis (5%), and hypoalbuminemia (4%). TRAEs leading to discontinuation of either or both ami and laz occurred in 12% and 7%, respectively. Conclusions: Among an unselected population that has exhausted SOC osi and pt-chemo, ami and laz demonstrates encouraging antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT04077463.

Association of depth of target lesion response to brigatinib with outcomes in patients with ALK inhibitor-naive ALK+ NSCLC in ALTA-1L

9072

Background: In patients (pts) with crizotinib (CRZ)-refractory advanced ALK+ NSCLC in the phase 2 ALTA trial (NCT02094573), the depth of target lesion response to brigatinib (BRG) correlated with PFS and OS. Here, we examine the association of maximum decrease in target lesions with PFS and OS in ALTA-1L (NCT02737501), a randomized phase 3 trial of BRG vs CRZ in pts with ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK+ NSCLC. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive BRG 180 mg qd (7-day lead-in at 90 mg; n=137) or CRZ 250 mg bid (n=138). Pts with target lesion assessment by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) were grouped based on greatest decrease from baseline per RECIST v1.1: none–50%, 51%–75%, and 76%–100% shrinkage. Outcomes in the ≤50% target lesion shrinkage group served as the comparator for outcomes in the 51%–75% and 76%–100% groups. Results: At study end (last pt contact: Jan 29, 2021), 124/137 pts in the BRG arm and 125/138 pts in the CRZ arm had ≥1 evaluable target lesion assessment; female (BRG/CRZ), 51%/59%; median age, 57.5/60.0 years. Median follow-up was 40.8/15.7 months. In BRG/CRZ arms, 76%-100% shrinkage was observed in 56%/34% of pts, 51%-75% shrinkage in 27%/30%, and ≤50% shrinkage in 16%/35%, respectively. BRG was associated with significantly more pts with target lesion shrinkage >75% vs CRZ ( P=0.0005), and a Cochran-Armitage trend analysis demonstrated significantly deeper response across all shrinkage groups for BRG compared with CRZ ( P<0.0001). A majority of pts in the BRG arm experienced 76%–100% target lesion shrinkage in all subgroups analyzed. Pts treated with BRG or CRZ with target lesion shrinkage >50% had lower risk of a PFS event (BRG HR [95% CI]: 51%–75% shrinkage, 0.58 [0.29–1.18]; 76%–100%, 0.23 [0.12–0.46]; CRZ: 51%–75% shrinkage, 0.68 [0.41–1.12]; 76%–100%, 0.26 [0.15–0.45]) or an OS event (BRG: 51%–75% shrinkage, 0.39 [0.17–0.89]; 76%–100%, 0.15 [0.07–0.35]; CRZ: 51%–75% shrinkage, 0.43 [0.21–0.85]; 76%–100%, 0.23 [0.10–0.50]) than pts with ≤50% shrinkage. Longer median time to PFS and OS and higher 4-year estimated OS rates were associated with depth of response in both arms (Table). Conclusions: In this exploratory post hoc analysis, BRG demonstrated significantly deeper target lesion response vs CRZ. Pts with >75% shrinkage had significantly reduced risk of a PFS or OS event vs pts with ≤50% target lesion shrinkage. Clinical trial information: NCT02737501. [Table: see text]

A randomized phase 3 study of entrectinib versus crizotinib in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive (fp) NSCLC with or without baseline CNS metastases (mets)

TPS9141

Background: ROS proto-oncogene 1 ( ROS1) fusions are found in 1–2% of NSCLC cases. As CNS mets are common in pts with ROS1-fp NSCLC and associated with poor prognosis, CNS-active treatments are needed for these pts. Entrectinib and crizotinib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of ROS1, recommended as first-line treatments for ROS1-fp NSCLC. Both drugs have shown robust systemic efficacy and good tolerability in pts with ROS1-fp NSCLC. While crizotinib may have suboptimal CNS activity, entrectinib has shown intracranial efficacy in pts with baseline CNS mets by blinded independent central review (BICR, PMIDs 30215676; 33646820). We hypothesized that entrectinib may have greater CNS activity than crizotinib, potentially addressing the unmet need for pts with ROS1-fp NSCLC with CNS mets. Methods: This randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial (NCT04603807) aims to compare the efficacy and safety of entrectinib vs crizotinib in adult pts with TKI-naïve advanced/metastatic ROS1-fp NSCLC, with or without CNS mets. Key eligibility criteria: advanced/recurrent/metastatic NSCLC with ROS1 fusion determined locally by certified clinical laboratory testing; measurable systemic disease (RECIST 1.1); age ≥18 years; ECOG PS ≤2; no prior ROS1 TKI or systemic treatment for advanced/metastatic disease; adequate hematologic, renal and hepatic functions; prior radiotherapy ≥14 days before randomization and neurologically stable CNS mets per RECIST 1.1 are permitted. Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive 600 mg entrectinib once a day or 250 mg crizotinib twice a day. Stratification factors are baseline CNS mets (none/measurable/non-measurable) and prior brain radiotherapy ≤2 months (yes/no); to allow sufficient power, ≥30% of randomized pts will have baseline CNS mets. Study treatment will continue until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death or withdrawal from the study. Pts with radiographic disease progression or isolated asymptomatic CNS progression may continue treatment at the investigator’s discretion. Tumor assessments (brain MRI and chest, abdomen and pelvis CT/MRI) will occur at screening, Wk 4, Wk 8 and every 8 wks thereafter. Blood samples will be collected at every visit. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS) by BICR in pts with baseline CNS mets (CNS population, target HR = 0.57). Secondary endpoints: CNS-PFS by BICR and ORR, duration of response (DoR) and PFS (by BICR and investigator) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population; overall survival in the CNS and ITT populations; CNS-ORR and CNS-DoR by BICR in the CNS population. Impact on quality of life, functioning and lung cancer-specific symptoms will be evaluated via questionnaires in the ITT population. Safety endpoints and biomarkers will also be evaluated. As of 12 Jan 2022, 8 pts are enrolled (first pt enrolled in Oct 2021). Clinical trial information: NCT04603807.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Association Between Smoking History and Overall Survival in Patients Receiving Pembrolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMPORTANCE

There is a need to tailor treatments to patients who are most likely to derive the greatest benefit from them to improve patient outcomes and enhance cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To compare overall survival (OS) between patients with a current or former history of smoking with patients who never smoked and initiated pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced non-small lung cancer (NSCLC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study compared patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC aged 18 or higher selected from a nationwide real-world database originating from more than 280 US cancer clinics. The study inclusion period was from January 1, 2011, to October 1, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Smoking status at the time of NSCLC diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

OS measured from initiation of 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy.

RESULTS

In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 1166 patients (median [IQR] age, 72.9 [15.3] years; 581 [49.8%] men and 585 [50.2%] women) were assessed in the primary analysis, including 91 patients [7.8%] with no history of smoking (ie, never-smokers) and 1075 patients [92.2%] who currently or formerly smoked (ie, ever-smokers). Compared with ever-smokers, never-smokers were older (median age [IQR] of 78.2 [12.0] vs 72.7 [15.5] years), more likely to be female (61 [67.0%] vs 524 [48.7%]) and to have been diagnosed with nonsquamous tumor histology (70 [76.9%] vs 738 [68.7%]). After adjustment for baseline covariates, ever-smokers who initiated 1L pembrolizumab had significantly prolonged OS compared to never-smokers (median OS: 12.8 [10.9-14.6] vs 6.5 [3.3-13.8] months; hazard ratio (HR): 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50-0.95]). This trend was observed across all sensitivity analyses for the 1L pembrolizumab cohort, but not for initiators of 1L platinum chemotherapy, for which ever-smokers showed significantly shorter OS compared with never-smokers (HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.07-1.33]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In patients with advanced NSCLC who received 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy in routine clinical practices in the US, patients who reported a current or former history of smoking at the time of diagnosis had consistently longer OS than never-smokers. This finding suggests that in never-smoking advanced NSCLC, 1L pembrolizumab monotherapy may not be the optimal therapy selection, and genomic testing for potential genomically matched therapies should be prioritized over pembrolizumab in never-smokers.