Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel ...made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.
To provide evidence-based recommendations to update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
An Update Committee of the ...American Society of Clinical Oncology NSCLC Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from January 2007 to February 2014.
This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline.
There is no cure for patients with stage IV NSCLC. For patients with performance status (PS) 0 to 1 (and appropriate patient cases with PS 2) and without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation or ALK gene rearrangement, combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care. Recommendations for patients in the first-line setting include platinum-doublet therapy for those with PS 0 to 1 (bevacizumab may be added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel if no contraindications); combination or single-agent chemotherapy or palliative care alone for those with PS 2; afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with sensitizing EGFR mutations; crizotinib for those with ALK or ROS1 gene rearrangement; and following first-line recommendations or using platinum plus etoposide for those with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Maintenance therapy includes pemetrexed continuation for patients with stable disease or response to first-line pemetrexed-containing regimens, alternative chemotherapy, or a chemotherapy break. In the second-line setting, recommendations include docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma; docetaxel, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with squamous cell carcinoma; and chemotherapy or ceritinib for those with ALK rearrangement who experience progression after crizotinib. In the third-line setting, for patients who have not received erlotinib or gefitinib, treatment with erlotinib is recommended. There are insufficient data to recommend routine third-line cytotoxic therapy. Decisions regarding systemic therapy should not be made based on age alone. Additional information can be found at http://www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring ...accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.
The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2017 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver ...alterations. A guideline update for patients with stage IV NSCLC with driver alterations will be published separately.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) NSCLC Expert Panel made updated recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from December 2015 to 2019.
This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Five randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base. Additional literature suggested by the Expert Panel is discussed.
Recommendations apply to patients without driver alterations in epidermal growth factor receptor or ALK. For patients with high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score TPS ≥ 50%) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. Additional treatment options include pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, or atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. For most patients with non-SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive (1% to 49%) PD-L1, the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/pemetrexed. Additional options are atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, platinum-based two-drug combination chemotherapy, or non-platinum-based two-drug therapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option for low positive PD-L1. For patients with high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%) and SCC, the Expert Panel recommends single-agent pembrolizumab. An additional treatment option is pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel). For most patients with SCC and either negative (0%) or low positive PD-L1 (TPS 1% to 49%), the Expert Panel recommends pembrolizumab/carboplatin/(paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel) or chemotherapy. Single-agent pembrolizumab is an option in select cases of low positive PD-L1. Recommendations are conditional on the basis of histology, PD-L1 status, and/or the presence or absence of contraindications. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/lung-cancer-guidelines.
RTOG 0617 compared standard-dose (SD; 60 Gy) versus high-dose (HD; 74 Gy) radiation with concurrent chemotherapy and determined the efficacy of cetuximab for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer ...(NSCLC).
The study used a 2 × 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, with a primary end point of overall survival (OS).
Median follow-up was 5.1 years. There were 3 grade 5 adverse events (AEs) in the SD arm and 9 in the HD arm. Treatment-related grade ≥3 dysphagia and esophagitis occurred in 3.2% and 5.0% of patients in the SD arm
12.1% and 17.4% in the HD arm, respectively (
= .0005 and < .0001). There was no difference in pulmonary toxicity, with grade ≥3 AEs in 20.6% and 19.3%. Median OS was 28.7
20.3 months (
= .0072) in the SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23% and 18.3% and 13% (
= .055), respectively. Factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volume, esophagitis/dysphagia, planning target volume and heart V5. The use of cetuximab conferred no survival benefit at the expense of increased toxicity. The prior signal of benefit in patients with higher H scores was no longer apparent. The progression rate within 1 month of treatment completion in the SD arm was 4.6%. For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rates allowing for that dropout rate were 59.6% and 30.7%, respectively, in the SD arms.
A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remain the standard of care, with the OS rate being among the highest reported in the literature for stage III NSCLC. Cetuximab had no effect on OS. The 2-year OS rates in the control arm are similar to the PACIFIC trial.
Survival of patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unsatisfactory, and in 2002, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was not established. This phase III study ...assessed the impact of postoperative adjuvant gefitinib on overall survival (OS).
Patients with completely resected (stage IB, II, or IIIA) NSCLC stratified by stage, histology, sex, postoperative radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gefitinib 250 mg per day or placebo for 2 years. Study end points were OS, disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicity.
As a result of early closure, 503 of 1,242 planned patients were randomly assigned (251 to gefitinib and 252 to placebo). Baseline factors were balanced between the arms. With a median of 4.7 years of follow-up (range, 0.1 to 6.3 years), there was no difference in OS (hazard ratio HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.64; P = .14) or DFS (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.61; P = .15) between the arms. Exploratory analyses demonstrated no DFS (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.76; P = .14) or OS benefit (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.71; P = .18) from gefitinib for 344 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) wild-type tumors. Similarly, there was no DFS (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.44 to 7.73; P = .395) or OS benefit (HR, 3.16; 95% CI, 0.61 to 16.45; P = .15) from gefitinib for the 15 patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors. Adverse events were those expected with an EGFR inhibitor. Serious adverse events occurred in ≤ 5% of patients, except infection, fatigue, and pain. One patient in each arm had fatal pneumonitis.
Although the trial closed prematurely and definitive statements regarding the efficacy of adjuvant gefitinib cannot be made, these results indicate that it is unlikely to be of benefit.
Polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (PMN-MDSCs) are pathologically activated neutrophils that are crucial for the regulation of immune responses in cancer. These cells contribute to ...the failure of cancer therapies and are associated with poor clinical outcomes. Despite recent advances in the understanding of PMN-MDSC biology, the mechanisms responsible for the pathological activation of neutrophils are not well defined, and this limits the selective targeting of these cells. Here we report that mouse and human PMN-MDSCs exclusively upregulate fatty acid transport protein 2 (FATP2). Overexpression of FATP2 in PMN-MDSCs was controlled by granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, through the activation of the STAT5 transcription factor. Deletion of FATP2 abrogated the suppressive activity of PMN-MDSCs. The main mechanism of FATP2-mediated suppressive activity involved the uptake of arachidonic acid and the synthesis of prostaglandin E
. The selective pharmacological inhibition of FATP2 abrogated the activity of PMN-MDSCs and substantially delayed tumour progression. In combination with checkpoint inhibitors, FATP2 inhibition blocked tumour progression in mice. Thus, FATP2 mediates the acquisition of immunosuppressive activity by PMN-MDSCs and represents a target to inhibit the functions of PMN-MDSCs selectively and to improve the efficiency of cancer therapy.
Summary Background We aimed to compare overall survival after standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy and the addition of cetuximab to concurrent ...chemoradiation for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods In this open-label randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study in 185 institutions in the USA and Canada, we enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, a Zubrod performance status of 0–1, adequate pulmonary function, and no evidence of supraclavicular or contralateral hilar adenopathy. We randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients to receive either 60 Gy (standard dose), 74 Gy (high dose), 60 Gy plus cetuximab, or 74 Gy plus cetuximab. All patients also received concurrent chemotherapy with 45 mg/m2 paclitaxel and carboplatin once a week (AUC 2); 2 weeks after chemoradiation, two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy separated by 3 weeks were given consisting of paclitaxel (200 mg/m2 ) and carboplatin (AUC 6). Randomisation was done with permuted block randomisation methods, stratified by radiotherapy technique, Zubrod performance status, use of PET during staging, and histology; treatment group assignments were not masked. Radiation dose was prescribed to the planning target volume and was given in 2 Gy daily fractions with either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The use of four-dimensional CT and image-guided radiation therapy were encouraged but not necessary. For patients assigned to receive cetuximab, 400 mg/m2 cetuximab was given on day 1 followed by weekly doses of 250 mg/m2 , and was continued through consolidation therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00533949. Findings Between Nov 27, 2007, and Nov 22, 2011, 166 patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose chemoradiotherapy, 121 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy, 147 to standard-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab, and 110 to high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab. Median follow-up for the radiotherapy comparison was 22·9 months (IQR 27·5–33·3). Median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·1–36·9) for patients who received standard-dose radiotherapy and 20·3 months (17·7–25·0) for those who received high-dose radiotherapy (hazard ratio HR 1·38, 95% CI 1·09–1·76; p=0·004). Median follow-up for the cetuximab comparison was 21·3 months (IQR 23·5–29·8). Median overall survival in patients who received cetuximab was 25·0 months (95% CI 20·2–30·5) compared with 24·0 months (19·8–28·6) in those who did not (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·84–1·35; p=0·29). Both the radiation-dose and cetuximab results crossed protocol-specified futility boundaries. We recorded no statistical differences in grade 3 or worse toxic effects between radiotherapy groups. By contrast, the use of cetuximab was associated with a higher rate of grade 3 or worse toxic effects (205 86% of 237 vs 160 70% of 228 patients; p<0·0001). There were more treatment-related deaths in the high-dose chemoradiotherapy and cetuximab groups (radiotherapy comparison: eight vs three patients; cetuximab comparison: ten vs five patients). There were no differences in severe pulmonary events between treatment groups. Severe oesophagitis was more common in patients who received high-dose chemoradiotherapy than in those who received standard-dose treatment (43 21% of 207 patients vs 16 7% of 217 patients; p<0·0001). Interpretation 74 Gy radiation given in 2 Gy fractions with concurrent chemotherapy was not better than 60 Gy plus concurrent chemotherapy for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, and might be potentially harmful. Addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation and consolidation treatment provided no benefit in overall survival for these patients. Funding National Cancer Institute and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
To provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2020 ASCO and Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without ...driver alterations.
ASCO updated recommendations on the basis of an ongoing systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2018 to 2021.
This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five randomized clinical trials provide the evidence base. Outcomes of interest include efficacy and safety.
In addition to 2020 options for patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (tumor proportion score TPS ≥ 50%), nonsquamous cell carcinoma (non-SCC), and performance status (PS) 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilumumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With negative (0%) and low positive PD-L1 expression (TPS 1%-49%), non-SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy. With high PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer single-agent atezolizumab. With high PD-L1 expression, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With negative and low positive PD-L1 expression, SCC, and PS 0-1, clinicians may offer nivolumab and ipilimumab alone or in combination with two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. With non-SCC who received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and chemotherapy as first-line therapy, clinicians may offer second-line paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. With non-SCC, who received chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, clinicians should offer the options of third-line single-agent pemetrexed, docetaxel, or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines.
To evaluate the efficacy of maintenance sunitinib after chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).
The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30504 trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II ...study that enrolled patients before chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) or carboplatin area under the curve of 5 on day 1 plus etoposide 100 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 to 3 every 21 days for four to six cycles). Patients without progression were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or sunitinib 37.5 mg per day until progression. Cross-over after progression was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) from random assignment for maintenance placebo versus sunitinib using a one-sided log-rank test with α = .15; 80 randomly assigned patients provided 89% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.67.
One hundred forty-four patients were enrolled; 138 patients received chemotherapy. Ninety-five patients were randomly assigned; 10 patients did not receive maintenance therapy (five on each arm). Eighty-five patients received maintenance therapy (placebo, n = 41; sunitinib, n = 44). Grade 3 adverse events with more than 5% incidence were fatigue (19%), decreased neutrophils (14%), decreased leukocytes (7%), and decreased platelets (7%) for sunitinib and fatigue (10%) for placebo; grade 4 adverse events were GI hemorrhage (n = 1) and pancreatitis, hypocalcemia, and elevated lipase (n = 1; all in same patient) for sunitinib and thrombocytopenia (n = 1) and hypernatremia (n = 1) for placebo. Median PFS on maintenance was 2.1 months for placebo and 3.7 months for sunitinib (HR, 1.62; 70% CI, 1.27 to 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.60; one-sided P = .02). Median overall survival from random assignment was 6.9 months for placebo and 9.0 months for sunitinib (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.10; one-sided P = .16). Three sunitinib and no placebo patients achieved complete response during maintenance. Ten (77%) of 13 patients evaluable after cross-over had stable disease on sunitinib (6 to 27 weeks).
Maintenance sunitinib was safe and improved PFS in extensive-stage SCLC.
PDF
