Rat sarcoma (RAS) is the most frequently mutated oncogene in human cancer, with Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) being the most commonly mutated RAS isoform. Overall, KRAS accounts for 85% of RAS mutations ...observed in human cancers and is present in 35% of lung adenocarcinomas (LUADs). While the use of targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) has drastically changed the treatment landscape of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years, historic attempts to target KRAS (both direct and indirect approaches) have had little success, and no KRAS-specific targeted therapies have been approved to date for patients in this molecular subset of NSCLC. With the discovery by Ostrem, Shokat, and colleagues of the switch II pocket on the surface of the active and inactive forms of KRAS, we now have an improved understanding of the complex interactions involved in the RAS family of signaling proteins which has led to the development of a number of promising direct KRASG12C inhibitors, such as sotorasib and adagrasib. In previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC, clinical activity has been shown for both sotorasib and adagrasib monotherapy; these data suggest promising new treatment options are on the horizon. With the stage now set for a new era in the treatment of KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC, many questions remain to be answered in order to further elucidate the mechanisms of resistance, how best to use combination strategies, and if KRASG12C inhibitors will have suitable activity in earlier lines of therapy for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC.
•Better understanding of RAS signaling has led to the development of promising directly blocking compounds in KRAS-mutant tumors.•New drug candidates take advantage of the increased knowledge of the KRAS mutation complex and relevant protein structures.•Increasing evidence continues to demonstrate the genomic heterogeneity in KRAS-mutated NSCLC.•Current efforts include understanding and overcoming resistance after treatment with KRASG12C inhibitors.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for approximately 85% of all cases. Most patients with NSCLC are diagnosed ...at an advanced stage and have a poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate of <5%. Despite the introduction of new chemotherapeutic agents and molecularly targeted drugs, outcomes remain poor, emphasising the need for new treatment approaches. Inducing or potentiating immune responses via immunotherapeutic manipulation is a viable treatment approach for lung cancer. Antigen-specific, tumour-cell, and dendritic cell-based vaccines have all been evaluated in lung cancer, and some have shown promising clinical activity in phase II trials. These include liposomal BLP25 vaccine (L-BLP25), which targets mucin 1, and melanoma-associated antigen 3 (MAGE-A3) antigen-specific cancer immunotherapeutic (ASCI), which targets MAGE-A3, a peptide expressed almost exclusively on tumour cells. MAGE-A3 ASCI is being evaluated in the adjuvant setting in a phase III trial of patients with early-stage NSCLC, while a phase III trial of L-BLP25 is enrolling patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. T-cell modulating agents (e.g. antibodies against programmed death 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 CTLA-4) are also being investigated. For example, in patients with NSCLC treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin, the phased administration of ipilimumab (an antibody against CTLA-4) resulted in substantial improvements in immune-related progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy alone (5.7 versus 4.6 months; P = 0.05). Immunotherapy in lung cancer is starting to deliver promising results in clinical trials. However, further research will be required to establish the optimal timing of therapy (i.e. in the adjuvant or metastatic settings). In addition, it will be important to determine if immunotherapies are most effective when used alone or in combination with other agents.
•This ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations for managing malignant pleural mesothelioma.•The optimal diagnostic methods, pathological evaluation and staging are described.•The ...authors make recommendations on the role of surgery and macroscopic complete resection as part of multimodality therapy.•The authors discuss optimal first-line, maintenance and salvage systemic therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors.•The authors discuss the role of prophylactic, radical and palliative radiotherapy and optimal supportive care.
Enhancing tumor-specific T-cell immunity by inhibiting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling has shown promise in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung ...cancer. Combining checkpoint inhibition with cytotoxic chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect and improve efficacy.
We conducted this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer who had not previously received treatment. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carboplatin and etoposide with either atezolizumab or placebo for four 21-day cycles (induction phase), followed by a maintenance phase during which they received either atezolizumab or placebo (according to the previous random assignment) until they had unacceptable toxic effects, disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or no additional clinical benefit. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population.
A total of 201 patients were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group, and 202 patients to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 13.9 months, the median overall survival was 12.3 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.3 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.54 to 0.91; P=0.007). The median progression-free survival was 5.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide was consistent with the previously reported safety profile of the individual agents, with no new findings observed.
The addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower133 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02763579 .).
Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC.
CheckMate 331 is a ...randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus <1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%.
Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab.
•The primary endpoint of OS with nivolumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment of SCLC was not met.•Crossing of the survival curves indicates higher long-term survival with nivolumab in a subset of patients.•Post hoc analyses suggest patients with baseline LDH ≤ ULN and those without liver metastases may benefit from nivolumab.•The safety profile of nivolumab was consistent with prior studies and more favorable than that of chemotherapy.
PDF
