Big Decisions on Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Focus on Clinical Care Updates and Patient Perspectives.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an uncommon, aggressive high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, associated with tobacco use. It is a highly chemosensitive disease that initially responds quickly to systemic therapy, although patients with SCLC tend to develop relapse. Although the landscape of SCLC treatment has remained stagnant for many decades, the field has seen notable advances in the past few years, including the use of immunotherapy, the development of further lines of systemic therapy, the refinement of thoracic and intracranial radiotherapy, and-most recently-the promise of more targeted therapies. Patients with SCLC also must face unique psychosocial burdens in their experience with their cancer, distinct from patients with other lung cancer. In this article, we review the latest literature and future directions in the management and investigation of SCLC, as well as the critical decisions that providers and patients must navigate in the current landscape. We also present the perspectives of several patients with SCLC in conjunction with this summary, to spotlight their individual journeys in the context of this challenging disease.

Differential Effect of Consolidative Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Sex.

Purpose: The landmark randomized trial on chest irradiation in extensive disease small cell lung cancer (CREST) demonstrated that consolidative thoracic radiation therapy (cTRT) improved overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after initial chemotherapy (chemo) in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer, with potentially increased benefit in women compared with men. It is unknown whether similar findings would apply after chemoimmunotherapy became the standard first-line treatment. In this analysis, we report national practice patterns and survival outcomes of cTRT according to patient sex. Methods and Materials: We included patients from de-identified electronic health record-derived database diagnosed with stage IV small cell lung cancer (2014-2021) who completed 4 to 6 cycles of first-line systemic therapy (platinum-doublet chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy). We evaluated OS and PFS using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with receipt of cTRT as an independent variable and stratified by sex. As a sensitivity analysis, we weighted the models by the inverse probability of receiving cTRT. Results: A total of 1227 patients were included (850 chemotherapy, 377 chemoimmunotherapy). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients who did and did not receive cTRT. Among women, cTRT was associated with superior OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87) and PFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82) compared with those not receiving cTRT. Conversely, no OS or PFS benefit with cTRT was observed in men (OS HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.80-1.31; PFS HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.47). Findings were similar in weighted analyses. Conclusions: The survival efficacy of cTRT may be moderated by sex, with female patients appearing more likely to benefit than male patients. These findings reflect sex-based survival trends with similar effect sizes to those observed in the CREST trial. Although the underpinnings of this association need to be elucidated, stratification by sex should be considered for randomized-controlled trials studying cTRT in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

What Is New in Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a rare yet aggressive lung cancer subtype with an extremely poor prognosis of around 1 year. SCLC accounts for 15% of all newly diagnosed lung cancers and is characterized by rapid growth with high potential for metastatic spread and treatment resistance. In the article the authors review some of the most notable efforts to improve outcomes, including trials of novel immunotherapy agents, novel disease targets, and multiple drug combinations.

Associations of Early Completion of Advance Directives With Key End-of-Life Quality Measures: Analysis of an ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Patient Cohort.

PURPOSE: Despite the growing calls for early and ubiquitous completion of advance directives (ADs), studies exploring links between AD completion and their impact on outcomes of patients with cancer have mixed conclusions. We used the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) registry to compare end-of-life (EOL) quality measures and the effect of QOPI certification among patients with and without early AD completion, defined as completion within the first three oncology visits after cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Deidentified patient-level data were analyzed from the QOPI database from 2015 through 2017. Associations were assessed using Chi-square tests between early AD completion and patient enrollment in hospice < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or with emergency room visits or intensive care unit admissions in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Data from 31,558 patients eligible for the AD question were analyzed. Patients treated at QOPI-certified practices had higher rates of early AD completion than patients at non-certified practices. Early AD completion was not associated with differences in hospice enrollment for < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or emergency room visits or intensive care unit encounters in the last 30 days of life. CONCLUSION: The study found that QOPI certification is associated with higher rates of early AD completion. However, early AD completion was not associated with recognized EOL quality measures. Future research should focus on the timing, frequency, and content of AD conversations to demonstrate the impact on care at the EOL.

Oral Chemotherapy Metric Performance in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Practices: Updated Trends and Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral chemotherapy performance measures were first introduced into ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) in 2013. This study examined performance on these measures among QOPI-participating practices and evaluated whether it differed among practices based on meeting QOPI Certification Program standards. METHODS: A total of 192 QOPI-participating practices (certified, n=50 [26%]; not certified, n=142 [74%]) reported performance on oral chemotherapy measures in 2017 and 2018. Inclusion was limited to practices reporting on ≥3 charts for ≥1 oral chemotherapy measure. Performance was defined as the percentage of charts examined that adhered to the measure. Descriptive analyses were used to characterize performance within and across practices, and mixed-effects logistic regression models were conducted to compare performance based on certification status. RESULTS: Median performance across practices for the 9 oral chemotherapy measures examined ranged from 44% (education before the start of treatment addressing missed doses, toxicities, and clinical contact instructions [composite measure]) to 100% (documented dose, documented plan, and education about toxicities). Certified practices were more likely to provide education about clinic contact instructions than noncertified practices (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.00-24.0). Performance on all other measures was not significantly associated with certification status. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in quality related to performance on oral chemotherapy measures across all QOPI-participating practices, and several areas were identified in which administration of oral chemotherapy could be improved. Our findings highlight the need for the development and implementation of appropriate standards that apply to oral chemotherapy and address the complexities that set it apart from parenteral treatment.

Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Programs' Participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: In the first decade of this millennium, ASCO pioneered a quality measurement tool, the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). Despite an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement since 2012 for oncology fellows to participate in quality improvement (QI) projects, the uptake of QOPI remains modest. METHODS: This study examined reasons for low QOPI participation by surveying participating and nonparticipating HemOnc Fellowship Programs. The survey elicited views toward QI and QOPI as well as ideas about making the program more helpful. RESULTS: Among 69 fellowship programs, only 39% (n = 27) participated in QOPI. Other findings were that (1) the majority of programs considered their fellows' QI projects beneficial but were not fulfilling the ACGME standard for all fellows' QI participation; (2) nonparticipating programs were unfamiliar with but interested in QOPI; (3) participating programs tended to view QI as easier to conduct and more beneficial than nonparticipating programs; and (4) programs that withdrew from QOPI and participating programs alike were dissatisfied with the educational benefit and data abstraction burden for fellows. CONCLUSION: Academic oncology programs generally valued QI but many have not fully engaged in it. Fellows in programs participating in QOPI may have had less difficulty conducting QI and their projects may have been more beneficial than that of nonparticipating programs. However, perceived lack of educational benefits for fellows and the burden of manual data abstraction from the electronic medical record are impediments to satisfaction with the program. Higher faculty involvement and longitudinal reports for each fellow may significantly increase participation.

Relationship Between Participation in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Program and American Board of Internal Medicine's Maintenance of Certification Program.

PURPOSE: Medical oncologists have a variety of options for demonstrating proficiency in providing high-quality patient care. Perhaps, the best-known opportunity for demonstrating individual expertise and lifelong learning is the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) program. At the practice level, ASCO has offered the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as a means of optimizing cancer care delivery. In this study, we assess the association between active involvement in MOC on an individual basis and whether that individual's practice is involved with the QOPI program. METHODS: We evaluated 13,600 US medical oncologists initially certified by the ABIM and divided them into those initially certified before 1990 (the year in which ABIM started to require periodic recertification), those from 1990 to 2007, and those from 2008 to 2016. It was then determined which of these had let their certificates expire by 2020. These data were then compared with practices that participated in QOPI from 2017 to 2019, resulting in the matching of 97% of physicians. RESULTS: Of individuals initially certified before 1990 (and technically with lifelong certification), 22% were in QOPI practices. Among those who did not have lifelong certification, there was an association between QOPI participation and maintenance of ABIM certification. For those initially certified between 1990 and 2007, 35% of oncologists with up-to-date ABIM certification were in QOPI practices, whereas only 11% with expired ABIM certification were QOPI participants (P < .0001). For those in the 2008-2016 category, the numbers were 36% v 16%, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis identifies a relationship between participation in these ABIM and ASCO proficiency programs. The reasons for this are likely complex and based on a variety of institutional, professional, monetary, and personal factors.

Pre-Treatment Staging Imaging in Rectal Cancer: Results From the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: For patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend initial staging using pelvic magnetic resonance imaging or endorectal ultrasound to determine the stage of the disease before initial therapy or surgery. This imaging workup helps determine the T and N staging, which is essential to determine optimal treatment for a patient. The current study examined practice concordance with this guideline using a quality measure in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) that specifically addressed staging workup for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: From Fall 2016 through Fall 2019, 103 QOPI-participating practices reported performance on QOPI measure Colorectal 78, which addresses staging workup for patients with rectal cancer. The percentage and 95% CI of patients who received guideline-concordant imaging were calculated for each of the seven assessment time points. Difference of concordance rates between subsequent time points and the initial time point was assessed using logistic regression with random-effects models. In addition, 69 practices that submitted data in 2016 and 2017 were surveyed to gain insight on potential reasons for nonconcordance and the results were described. RESULTS: At each time point, a total of 20-33 practices reported data across 1,158 unique patients. Adherence appeared to increase over time, with 38% of patients receiving guideline-recommended staging in Fall 2016, to 56% in Fall 2019. The practice survey revealed that nonconcordance was mostly because of lack of care coordination between oncology and surgery disciplines (n = 16 practices of 28, 57.1%) and a lack of awareness of appropriate staging scans (n = 8 practices, 28.6%). CONCLUSION: As one half to one third of patients still do not receive appropriate imaging, our findings highlight the need for concerted quality improvement efforts that involve the multidisciplinary team to close this gap.

COVID-19 and Cancer Center Operations: Lessons Learned From the NCCN Best Practices Committee.

The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders from NCCN Member Institutions, evaluated the status of cancer center operations after 1 year of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two major initiatives stood out: the increase in the utilization of network sites, and the gains made in telemedicine operations and reimbursement. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in a webinar series in June 2021 to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts on these topics and discuss the impact on the future of cancer care.

Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The "Summary of the Guidelines Updates" section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.

Harnessing the Immune System to Tackle Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Immunotherapy has improved first-line therapy for small cell lung cancer and has activity in the relapsed setting as well. The immunobiology of small cell lung cancer poses challenges for immunotherapy, and efforts are underway to unlock to the potential of immunotherapy through the identification of meaningful disease subsets and the development of novel combination therapies.

ASCO Quality Training Program: A Five-Year Review.

PURPOSE: ASCO introduced the Quality Training Program (QTP) in 2013 with the aim to train oncology professionals to design, implement, and lead successful quality improvement (QI) activities and assume leadership positions to champion culture change in their practices. METHODS: The QTP is a formal 6-month program taught by QI faculty and mentored by QI coaches over 5 days of in-person learning across 3 sessions and hands-on learning at the participants' practices. Sessions include seminars, case examples, and small-group exercises. Participants attend in multidisciplinary teams and focus on a problem they wish to solve in their practice. Scheduled conference calls with QI coaches are held between sessions. Participants complete pre- and post-QTP surveys (10-point Likert scale, with 1 = no knowledge/competence and 10 = complete knowledge/competence) and provide direct written feedback. RESULTS: Since its inception, QTP has had 15 courses (10 domestic and 5 international) with 120 teams and 544 total participants. QTP is led by an 8-member steering group with 16 faculty and coaches. All postsurvey items showed an increase in knowledge and competence. Each item's score was calculated as the mean difference between before and after scores. Participants stated an increase of 46%-84% (overall mean increase: knowledge, 38%; competence, 37%). The greatest increases were in methodology and practical tools to make changes in practice (writing an aim statement, implementing rapid improvement, using process analysis tools, flowcharting the process). The most common suggestion for improvement was allowing more time for the project. Participants are encouraged to write articles and present work in poster and plenary sessions. QTP courses have led to 7 manuscripts and 21 abstract presentations to national meetings. Six QTP alumni are now QI coaches and faculty. CONCLUSION: The QTP is a successful QI course for oncology professionals who need to measure performance, investigate quality and safety issues, and implement change. It is the only oncology-focused QI training, as all faculty and coaches are providers and QI specialists with oncology experience, which makes this a unique opportunity. The success will provide further momentum to offer QTP domestically and around the world.

Clinical Activity and Safety of Atezolizumab in a Phase 1 Study of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein is expressed in various cancers, including small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Atezolizumab inhibits PD-L1 signaling, thus restoring tumor-specific T-cell immunity. Here, we report results from the first-in-human phase 1 PCD4989g study (NCT01375842) of atezolizumab, in a cohort of patients with relapsed/refractory SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with incurable or metastatic SCLC, which was advanced or recurrent since the last antitumor therapy, received atezolizumab 15 mg/kg or 1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or until loss of clinical benefit. The primary endpoint was safety. Efficacy and biomarkers of antitumor activity were also assessed. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled. Any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 11 (64.7%) and 5 (29.4%) patients, respectively. The most common any-grade TRAE was fatigue (4 patients [23.5%]). Partial response to atezolizumab was achieved in 1 patient (5.9%) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), and 3 (17.6%) per immune-related response criteria (irRC). Durations of response were 2.8 to > 45.7 months. Median investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 and irRC was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.7) and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.2-6.1) months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.3-12.6). Patients with high (≥ median expression) T-effector gene signature and PD-L1 mRNA expression appeared to show a trend toward improved PFS (per irRC) and OS. CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab was generally well tolerated and exhibited antitumor activity in a small cohort of patients with relapsed/refractory SCLC.

EGFR mutation testing and treatment decisions in patients progressing on first- or second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate real-world EGFR mutation testing in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) upon progression on first-/second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), and subsequent treatments received. METHODS: Flatiron Health electronic health records-derived database was used to identify adult patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with first-/second-generation EGFR-TKI from 11/2015-09/2017, with start of first EGFR-TKI defined as the index date. Patients were stratified by receipt of EGFR-TKI as first-line (1 L) or later-line (2 L+) treatment. Mutation testing and subsequent therapies following first-/second-generation EGFR-TKI were described. RESULTS: Overall, 782 patients (1 L = 435; 2 L+ =347) were included. Median age was 69.0 years, 63.6% were female, 56.3% were white, 87.1% were treated in community-based practices, and 30.1% of patients died during the study period; median follow-up was 309.0 days. Among the 294 (1 L = 160; 2L+ =134) patients who received subsequent therapies, treatments included chemotherapy only (1 L = 15.6%; 2L+ =21.6%), immunotherapy only (1 L = 13.8%; 2 L+ =41.0%), and targeted therapies (1 L = 70.0%; 2 L+ =36.6%). Specifically, 40 (25.0%) 1 L patients and 7 (5.2%) 2 L+ patients received osimertinib as subsequent therapy. Before the start of subsequent therapy, EGFR T790M resistance mutation testing was performed in 88 (29.9%) patients (1 L = 63 [39.4%]; 2 L+ =25 [18.7%]). Of these patients, 25 (28.4%) were T790M positive, among whom 24 (96.0%) received osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: A third of patients received subsequent therapies on disease progression; only 30% of these were tested for EGFR-TKI resistance mutation, prior to receiving subsequent therapies. These results highlight the importance of choosing treatments in the 1 L setting that optimize benefits for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Pembrolizumab for management of patients with NSCLC and brain metastases: long-term results and biomarker analysis from a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We did a phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma with untreated brain metastases to determine the activity of PD-1 blockade in the CNS. Interim results were previously published, and we now report an updated analysis of the full NSCLC cohort. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 2 study of patients from the Yale Cancer Center (CT, USA). Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with stage IV NSCLC with at least one brain metastasis 5-20 mm in size, not previously treated or progressing after previous radiotherapy, no neurological symptoms or corticosteroid requirement, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than two. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria was used to evaluate CNS disease; systemic disease was not required for participation. Patients were treated with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Patients were in two cohorts: cohort 1 was for those with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% and cohort 2 was patients with PD-L1 less than 1% or unevaluable. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a brain metastasis response (partial response or complete response, according to mRECIST). All treated patients were analysed for response and safety endpoints. This study is closed to accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02085070. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and May 21, 2018, 42 patients were treated. Median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 4·5-26·2). 11 (29·7% [95% CI 15·9-47·0]) of 37 patients in cohort 1 had a brain metastasis response. There were no responses in cohort 2. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to treatment included two patients with pneumonitis, and one each with constitutional symptoms, colitis, adrenal insufficiency, hyperglycaemia, and hypokalaemia. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in six (14%) of 42 patients and were pneumonitis (n=2), acute kidney injury, colitis, hypokalaemia, and adrenal insufficiency (n=1 each). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab has activity in brain metastases from NSCLC with PD-L1 expression at least 1% and is safe in selected patients with untreated brain metastases. Further investigation of immunotherapy in patients with CNS disease from NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: Merck and the Yale Cancer Center.

Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS: Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

Management of Pneumonitis and Neuropathy in Patients Receiving PD-1-Based Therapy for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Immunotherapy with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors has improved outcomes for certain patients with advanced lung cancer. As use of these therapies has expanded in first-line settings, in patients with different histologies, and in combinations with chemotherapeutic and targeted agents, more patients with lung cancer may benefit from these therapies. However, with expanded use comes greater potential exposure to the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with these immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This article uses two case examples to illustrate the presentation, evaluation, and management of pulmonary and neurologic symptoms in two patients receiving PD-1-based therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. These cases illustrate the challenges associated with recognizing pneumonitis and neuropathy in patients receiving ICIs for lung cancer. Although pneumonitis and neuropathy are relatively rare irAEs, they can have devastating or even fatal outcomes if not promptly recognized and managed appropriately. Specific use of guideline-based, multidisciplinary management is emphasized, as illustrated in the Immuno-Oncology Essentials Care Step Pathways.

Randomized Phase II Study of Paclitaxel plus Alisertib versus Paclitaxel plus Placebo as Second-Line Therapy for SCLC: Primary and Correlative Biomarker Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the Aurora A kinase inhibitor, alisertib, plus paclitaxel (henceforth referred to as alisertib/paclitaxel) as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this double-blind study, patients with relapsed or refractory SCLC were stratified by relapse type (sensitive versus resistant or refractory) and brain metastases and randomized 1:1 to alisertib/paclitaxel or placebo plus paclitaxel (henceforth referred to as placebo/paclitaxel) in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Associations of c-Myc expression in tumor tissue (prespecified) and genetic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (retrospective) with clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were enrolled (89 in each arm). The median PFS was 3.32 months with alisertib/paclitaxel versus 2.17 months with placebo/paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, 95% confidence limit [CI]: 0.557-1.067, p = 0.113 in the intent-to-treat population versus HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.509-0.985, p = 0.038 with corrected analysis applied). Among 140 patients with genetic alternations, patients with cell cycle regulator mutations (cyclin-dependent kinase 6 gene [CDK6], retinoblastoma-like 1 gene [RBL1], retinoblastoma-like 2 gene [RBL2], and retinoblastoma 1 gene [RB1]) had significantly improved PFS with alisertib/paclitaxel versus with placebo/paclitaxel (3.68 versus 1.80 months, respectively [HR = 0.395, 95% CI: 0.239-0.654, p = 0.0003]), and overall survival (7.20 versus 4.47 months, respectively [HR = 0.427, 95% CI: 0.259-0.704, p = 0.00085]). A subset of patients with c-Myc expression showed significantly improved PFS with alisertib/paclitaxel. The incidence of grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events was 67% (58 patients) with alisertib/paclitaxel versus 22% (25 patients) with placebo/paclitaxel. Twelve patients (14%) versus 11 (12%) died on study, including four versus zero treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy signals were seen with alisertib/paclitaxel in relapsed or refractory SCLC. c-Myc expression and mutations in cell cycle regulators may be potential predictive biomarkers of alisertib efficacy; further prospective validations are warranted.