Moving Immunotherapy Into the Treatment of Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Clinical investigation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has expanded from indications in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to add to the treatment of early-stage or resectable NSCLC. Although completed randomized trials supported the approvals of some ICIs as perioperative therapies (ie, adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant), ongoing trials are evaluating other anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies for similar indications, or in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). The incorporation of immunotherapy brings potential to improve outcomes of patients with resectable NSCLC, but these advances have also increased the complexity of the treatment landscape and created important knowledge gaps. This article reviews the current standards for local therapies in NSCLC, describes the clinical trials exploring the combination of ICIs to SBRT, and explains the recent approvals of ICIs as perioperative therapies. A discussion follows to highlight three important areas of uncertainty: (1) the contribution of ICIs given in each treatment phase (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) to the overall effect of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by adjuvant ICIs; (2) the selection of regimens to serve as comparators in future randomized trials of perioperative therapies; and (3) the role of pathologic complete response as an intermediate end point and aid for selection of patients for adjuvant therapy. Moving forward, stakeholders will need to engage in concerted research efforts to address the relevant clinical questions regarding the optimal management of resectable NSCLC.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for centrally located inoperable early-stage NSCLC: EORTC 22113-08113 LungTech phase II trial results.

BACKGROUND: The international EORTC phase II single-arm LungTech trial 22113-08113 assessed safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with centrally located early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with inoperable non-metastatic central NSCLC (T1-T3 N0 M0, ≤7cm) were included. After prospective central imaging review and radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) for any eligible patient, SBRT (8x7.5 Gy, ICRU 83) was delivered. The primary endpoint was freedom from local progression probability at three years after start of SBRT. RESULTS: The trial was closed earlier due to poor accrual related to repeated safety-related pauses in recruitment. Between 08/2015 and 12/2017, 39 patients from 6 European countries were included and 31 were treated per protocol and analyzed. Patients were mainly male (58%) with a median age of 75 years. Baseline comorbidities were mainly respiratory (68%) and cardiac (48%). Median tumor size was 2.6 cm (range, 1.2-5.5) and most cancers were T1 (51.6%) or T2a (38.7%) N0 M0 and of squamous cell origin (48.4%). Median follow-up was 3.6 years. The 3-year freedom from local progression and overall survival rates were 81.5% (90% CI: 62.7-91.4%) and 61.1% (90%CI: 44.1-74.4%), respectively. Cumulative incidence rates of local, regional and distant progression at 3 years were 6.7% (90% CI: 1.6-17.1%), 3.3% (90% CI: 0.4 - 12.4%) and 29.8% (90% CI: 16.8 - 44.1%), respectively. SBRT-related acute and late AEs ≥ G3 were reported in 6.5% (n=2, including one G5 pneumonitis in a patient with prior interstitial lung disease) and 19.4 % (n=6, including one lethal hemoptysis after a lung biopsy in a patient receiving anticoagulants), respectively. CONCLUSION: The LungTech trial suggests that SBRT with 8×7.5Gy for central lung tumors in inoperable patients is associated with acceptable local control rates. However, late severe adverse events may occur after completion of treatment. This SBRT regimen is a viable treatment option after thorough risk-benefit discussion with patients. To minimize potentially fatal toxicity, careful management of dose constraints and post-SBRT interventions is crucial.

Alectinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected ALK-positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.).

Challenges and controversies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a clinician's perspective.

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is transforming due to the approval of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently approved adjuvant osimertinib, adjuvant atezolizumab, adjuvant pembrolizumab, and neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy, and the approval of other agents or new indications may follow soon. Despite encouraging results, many unaddressed questions remain. Moreover, the transformed treatment paradigm in resectable NSCLC can pose major challenges to healthcare systems and magnify existing disparities in care as differences in reimbursement may vary across different European countries. This Viewpoint discusses the challenges and controversies in resectable early-stage NSCLC and how existing inequalities in access to these treatments could be addressed.

New systemic treatment paradigms in resectable non-small cell lung cancer and variations in patient access across Europe.

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is set to change significantly due to encouraging results from randomized trials evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, as well as adjuvant targeted therapy. As of January 2024, marketing authorization has been granted for four new indications in Europe, and regulatory approvals for other study regimens are expected. Because cost-effectiveness and reimbursement criteria for novel treatments often differ between European countries, access to emerging developments may lead to inequalities due to variations in recommended and available lung cancer care throughout Europe. This Series paper (i) highlights the clinical studies reshaping the treatment landscape in resectable early-stage NSCLC, (ii) compares and contrasts approaches taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for drug approval to that taken by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and (iii) evaluates the differences in access to emerging treatments from an availability perspective across European countries.

Overall Survival From the EORTC LCG-1613 APPLE Trial of Osimertinib Versus Gefitinib Followed by Osimertinib in Advanced EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Osimertinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with common sensitizing EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) although the sequential approach (first-generation inhibitor gefitinib followed by osimertinib) has not been formally compared. The phase II APPLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856893) enrolled 156 treatment-naïve patients, and two treatment strategies were evaluated: osimertinib up front or the sequential treatment approach with gefitinib up front followed by osimertinib at the time of progression, either molecular progression (detection of plasma T790M resistance mutation) regardless of the radiologic status or just at the time of radiologic progression. Patients' characteristics were well balanced, except for the higher proportion of baseline brain metastases in the sequential approach (29% v 19%). Per protocol, 73% of patients switched to osimertinib in the sequential arm. Up-front treatment with osimertinib was associated with a lower risk of brain progression versus the sequential approach (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [90% CI, 0.34 to 0.86]), but a comparable overall survival was observed between both strategies (HR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.61 to 1.68]), with the 18-month survival probability of 84% and 82.3%, respectively. The APPLE trial suggests that a sequential treatment approach is associated with more frequent progression in the brain but a similar survival in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Pembrolizumab-combination therapy for NSCLC- effectiveness and predictive factors in real-world practice.

Introduction: Pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in <50% of tumour cells (TC). Methods: We evaluated the efficacy of the treatment in real-world practice, paying attention to the predictive factors, with a special focus on low level of PD-L1 expression. This study is a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with stage IV NSCLC. Results: A group of 339 consecutive patients was analysed, among them 51% patients with low PD-L1 expression. In the overall population, the ORR was 40.6%, median PFS and OS were 13 months (95% CI 11.4-15) and 16.8 months (95% CI 13.3-20.3), respectively. In multivariate analysis for the entire study population, performance status - ECOG 1 vs. 0 (HR 2.2, 95%CI 1.1-4.6; p=0.02), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR)>3 (HR 2.3, 95%CI 1.3-4.2; p=0.04), presence of liver (HR 2.0, 95%CI 1-3.7; p=0. 03) and bone metastases (HR 1.3, 95%CI 1-3; p=0.04), weight loss (HR 1.8, 95%CI 1.1-2.8; p=0.01) and sum of measurable lesions diameters >110 mm (HR 1.7, 95%CI 1-2.9, p=0.049) had a negative impact on OS. Conclusions: In the real world, patients can clinically benefit from immunochemotherapy, regardless of the expression of PD-L1 and the histological type. Other clinicopathological factors such as performance status, extent, and location of secondary lesions have prognostic significance.

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. METHODS: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. RESULTS: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

miR-122 and miR-21 are Stable Components of miRNA Signatures of Early Lung Cancer after Validation in Three Independent Cohorts.

Several panels of circulating miRNAs have been reported as potential biomarkers of early lung cancer, yet the overlap of components between different panels is limited, and the universality of proposed biomarkers has been minimal across proposed panels. To assess the stability of the diagnostic potential of plasma miRNA signature of early lung cancer among different cohorts, a panel of 24 miRNAs tested in the frame of one lung cancer screening study (MOLTEST-2013, Poland) was validated with material collected in the frame of two other screening studies (MOLTEST-BIS, Poland; and SMAC, Italy) using the same standardized analytical platform (the miRCURY LNA miRNA PCR assay). On analysis of selected miRNAs, two associated with lung cancer development, miR-122 and miR-21, repetitively differentiated healthy participants from individuals with lung cancer. Additionally, miR-144 differentiated controls from cases specifically in subcohorts with adenocarcinoma. Other tested miRNAs did not overlap in the three cohorts. Classification models based on neither a single miRNA nor multicomponent miRNA panels (24-mer and 7-mer) showed classification performance sufficient for a standalone diagnostic biomarker (AUC, 75%, 71%, and 53% in MOLTEST-2013, SMAC, and MOLTEST-BIS, respectively, in the 7-mer model). The performance of classification in the MOLTEST-BIS cohort with the lowest contribution of adenocarcinomas was increased when only this cancer type was considered (AUC, 60% in 7-mer model).

Clinical and molecular characterization of long-term survivors with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide.

OBJECTIVES: In the Phase I/III IMpower133 study, first-line atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CP/ET) treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival versus placebo plus CP/ET. We explored patient and disease characteristics associated with long-term survival in IMpower133, and associations of differential gene expression and SCLC-A (ASCL1-driven), SCLC-N (NEUROD1-driven), SCLC-P (POU2F3-driven), and SCLC-inflamed (SCLC-I) transcriptional subtypes with long-term survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC were randomized 1:1 to four 21-day cycles of CP/ET with atezolizumab or placebo. Long-term survivors (LTS) were defined as patients who lived ≥ 18 months post randomization. A generalized linear model was used to evaluate the odds of living ≥ 18 months. Differential gene expression was analyzed using RNA-sequencing data in LTS and non-LTS. OS was assessed by T-effector and B-cell gene signature expression. Distribution of SCLC transcriptional subtypes was assessed in LTS and non-LTS. RESULTS: More LTS were in the atezolizumab arm (34%) than in the placebo arm (20%). The odds ratio for living ≥ 18 months in the atezolizumab arm versus the placebo arm was 2.1 (P < 0.03). Enhanced immune-related signaling was seen in LTS in both arms. Exploratory OS analyses showed atezolizumab treatment benefit versus placebo across T-effector and B-cell gene signature expression subgroups. A higher proportion of LTS than non-LTS in both arms had the SCLC-I subtype; this difference was particularly pronounced in the atezolizumab arm. CONCLUSION: These exploratory analyses suggest that long-term survival is more likely with atezolizumab than placebo in ES-SCLC, confirming the treatment benefit of the IMpower133 regimen. CLINICALTRIAL: gov Identifier: NCT02763579.

Tarlatamab for Patients with Previously Treated Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tarlatamab, a bispecific T-cell engager immunotherapy targeting delta-like ligand 3 and CD3, showed promising antitumor activity in a phase 1 trial in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, we evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of tarlatamab, administered intravenously every 2 weeks at a dose of 10 mg or 100 mg, in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response), as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. RESULTS: Overall, 220 patients received tarlatamab; patients had previously received a median of two lines of treatment. Among patients evaluated for antitumor activity and survival, the median follow-up was 10.6 months in the 10-mg group and 10.3 months in the 100-mg group. An objective response occurred in 40% (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 52) of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 32% (97.5% CI, 21 to 44) of those in the 100-mg group. Among patients with an objective response, the duration of response was at least 6 months in 59% (40 of 68 patients). Objective responses at the time of data cutoff were ongoing in 22 of 40 patients (55%) in the 10-mg group and in 16 of 28 patients (57%) in the 100-mg group. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 6.7) in the 10-mg group and 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.4) in the 100-mg group; the estimates of overall survival at 9 months were 68% and 66% of patients, respectively. The most common adverse events were cytokine-release syndrome (in 51% of the patients in the 10-mg group and in 61% of those in the 100-mg group), decreased appetite (in 29% and 44%, respectively), and pyrexia (in 35% and 33%). Cytokine-release syndrome occurred primarily during treatment cycle 1, and events in most of the patients were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome occurred less frequently in the 10-mg group (in 1% of the patients) than in the 100-mg group (in 6%). A low percentage of patients (3%) discontinued tarlatamab because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Tarlatamab, administered as a 10-mg dose every 2 weeks, showed antitumor activity with durable objective responses and promising survival outcomes in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by Amgen; DeLLphi-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05060016.).

Real-World Experience in Treatment of Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with BRAF or cMET Exon 14 Skipping Mutations.

BRAF and cMET exon 14 skipping are rare mutations of NSCLC. The treatment sequence in these cases for the first and second line is not clear. An international registry was created for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring BRAF or cMET exon 14 skipping mutations, diagnosed from January 2017 to June 2022. Clinicopathological and molecular data and treatment patterns were recorded. Data on 58 patients, from eight centers across five countries, were included in the final analysis. We found that 40 patients had the cMET exon 14 skipping mutation and 18 had the BRAF V600E mutation. In total, 53 and 28 patients received first- and second-line treatments, respectively, among which 52.8% received targeted therapy (TT) in the first line and 53.5% in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for first-line treatment with TT vs. other treatment such as immune checkpoint inhibitors ± chemotherapy (IO ± CT) were 55.6% vs. 21.7% (p = 0.0084) and 66.7% vs. 39.1% (p = 0.04), respectively. The type of treatment in first-line TT vs. other affected time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) was 11.6 m vs. 4.6 m (p= 0.006). The overall survival for the whole group was 15.4 m and was not statistically affected by the type of treatment (19.2 m vs. 13.5 m; p = 0.83).

Target Therapy in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Hope or Mirage?

Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare neoplasm that is typically diagnosed in a locally advanced stage, making it not eligible for radical surgery and requiring systemic treatment. Chemotherapy with platinum compounds and pemetrexed has been the only approved standard of care for approximately 20 years, without any relevant therapeutic advance until the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nevertheless, the prognosis remains poor, with an average survival of only 18 months. Thanks to a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying tumor biology, targeted therapy has become an essential therapeutic option in several solid malignancies. Unfortunately, most of the clinical trials evaluating potentially targeted drugs for MPM have failed. This review aims to present the main findings of the most promising targeted therapies in MPM, and to explore possible reasons leading to treatments failures. The ultimate goal is to determine whether there is still a place for continued preclinical/clinical research in this area.

Trimodality Treatment of Superior Sulcus Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Institutional Series of 47 Consecutive Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of superior sulcus tumors (SST) using concurrent chemoradiation followed by surgery is a current standard. However, due to the rarity of this entity, clinical experience in its treatment remains scarce. Here, we present the results of a large consecutive series of patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation followed by surgery at a single academic institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group included 48 patients with pathologically confirmed SST. The treatment schedule consisted of preoperative 6-MV photon-beam radiotherapy (45-66 Gy delivered in 25-33 fractions over 5-6.5 weeks) and concurrent two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Five weeks after completion of chemoradiation, pulmonary and chest wall resection was performed. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2018, 47 of 48 consecutive patients meeting protocol criteria underwent two cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and concurrent radiotherapy (45-66 Gy) followed by pulmonary resection. One patient did not undergo surgery due to brain metastases that occurred during induction therapy. The median follow-up was 64.7 months. Chemoradiation was well tolerated, with no toxicity-related deaths. Twenty-one patients (44%) developed grade 3-4 side effects, of which the most common was neutropenia (17 patients; 35.4%). Seventeen patients (36.2%) had postoperative complications, and 90-day mortality was 2.1%. Three- and five-year overall survival (OS) were 43.6% and 33.5%, respectively, and three- and five-year recurrence-free survival were 42.1% and 32.4%, respectively. Thirteen (27.7%) and 22 (46.8%) patients had a complete and major pathological response, respectively. Five-year OS in patients with complete tumor regression was 52.7% (95% CI 29.4-94.5). Predictive factors of long-term survival included age below 70 years, complete resection, pathological stage, and response to induction treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Chemoradiation followed by surgery is a relatively safe method with satisfactory outcomes.

Current and future applications of liquid biopsy in non-small-cell lung cancer-a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality and constitutes a significant societal burden. Recent advancements in targeted therapies and immunotherapy have considerably broadened therapeutic options in lung cancer, particularly in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, these novel methods necessitate sophisticated molecular diagnostics. Liquid biopsy, which refers to the cytological and molecular analysis of cancer markers shed by the tumor into the body fluids, may offer an attractive diagnostic tool at the individual patient level. This approach is particularly relevant for lung cancer, as the anatomical location of tumor lesions frequently makes them inaccessible for tissue biopsy. Apart from minimal invasiveness, the major advantages of liquid biopsy include better reflection of the tumor clonal heterogeneity (spatial heterogeneity), the possibility of sequential sampling, and real-time monitoring of tumor load and its evolving mutational status (temporal heterogeneity). Methods: This article reviews the available data in this field, current applications, and future perspectives in accordance with the Narrative Review reporting rules. Key Content and Findings: We discuss the most used approaches, i.e., circulating DNA and tumor cells, but also emerging liquid biopsy techniques, such as plasma DNA methylation, plasma metabolites and RNA, extracellular vesicles, and tumor-educated platelets in NSCLC. Finally, we highlight the current limitations of liquid biopsy techniques hampering their clinical applications. Conclusions: Due to their advantages, liquid biopsy-based approaches have recently gained immense interest in oncology. Potential applications of this method include early detection, informing precision medicine-based individualized treatment, and real-time monitoring of disease evolution and treatment. The development of next-generation sequencing has vastly extended genetic profiling, thus enabling better identification of druggable alterations. However, the clinical application of liquid biopsy techniques is still limited due to their suboptimal specificity and sensitivity, lack of standardization, and relatively high costs. Addressing these issues may allow further integration of liquid biopsies in the routine clinical setting, thus making a profound and permanent change in NSCLC management.

High-dose alectinib for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the Blood First Assay Screening Trial.

Introduction: This paper presents results from Cohort B (rearranged during transfection [RET], fusion-positive) of the Blood First Assay Screening Trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screened for genetic alterations using blood-based next-generation sequencing. Material and methods: Adults with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC received alectinib 900 mg twice daily (BID) in Phase I. Enrolment closed prematurely with Phase II uninitiated. Results: Among eight treated patients, confirmed best overall responses in evaluable patients were stable disease (4/5) and progressive disease (1/5). One dose-limiting toxicity (death, unknown cause) was considered by the investigator to be related to treatment and underlying disease. Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in five patients, and SAEs that may be related to treatment occurred in two patients. Conclusions: Alectinib showed limited activity in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and further investigation was not conducted due to the development of selective RET inhibitors pralsetinib and selpercatinib. No new safety signals were observed, and the safety profile of alectinib was in line with previous reports at the 600 mg BID dose.

Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic NSCLC with high blood-based tumor mutational burden: primary analysis of BFAST cohort C randomized phase 3 trial.

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is being explored as a predictive biomarker for cancer immunotherapy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer. BFAST (NCT03178552)-an open-label, global, multicohort trial-evaluated the safety and efficacy of first-line targeted therapies or immunotherapy in patients with unresectable Stage IIIB or IV advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who were selected for biomarker status using blood-based targeted next-generation sequencing. In the Phase 3 cohort C evaluating blood-based (b)TMB as a biomarker of atezolizumab efficacy, patients with bTMB of ≥10 (N = 471) were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or platinum-based chemotherapy per local standard of care. Cohort C did not meet its primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the population with bTMB of ≥16 (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.59, 1.00; P = 0.053). Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred in 10% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 20% in the chemotherapy arm. Adverse events of special interest occurred in 42% of patients in the atezolizumab arm and 26% in the chemotherapy arm. A prespecified exploratory analysis compared the bTMB clinical trial assay with the FoundationOne Liquid Companion Diagnostic assay and showed high concordance between assays. Additional exploration of bTMB to identify optimal cutoffs, confounding factors, assay improvements or cooperative biomarkers is warranted.

Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe-Who Decides the Future?

Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists' discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.