Principles of medical and oncological management of giant masses of the mediastinum: a narrative review.

Background and Objective: Giant mediastinal tumors are represented by well-defined histological variants originating from different structures and compartments while their clinical presentation may be similar and characterized by the same set of symptoms, the well-known mediastinal syndrome (MS). In 80% of cases the MS is caused by malignant neoplasms, such as lung tumors, in 10-18% of cases by hematological neoplasms and in 2-3% by benign causes. In this review we investigated the medical treatment of main giant mediastinal tumors, focusing our interest on the objective response rate (ORR), as it represents the most suitable parameter to predict the volumetric reduction of the neoplasm and, consequently, the regression of their most severe complication, the MS. We will also cover the supportive and symptomatic treatment of MS. Methods: We performed a deep analysis of the recent international literature published on PUBMED, UpToDate and Medline. The literature search was undertaken from origin until November 30th, 2021, and we only considered publications in English. Key Content and Findings: Considering the variety of pathologies that can occur in the mediastinum, a rapid histological characterization of the neoplasm is mandatory. In fact, the treatment of these neoplasms includes different approaches, sometimes used in combination, which include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. The vena cava syndrome (VCS), due to its high mortality, is considered an oncological emergency and, therefore, requires effective treatments carried out urgently, evaluated in multidisciplinary meeting. Conclusions: The treatment of MS includes both antiblastic treatments and therapies directed to the symptoms. Among the former, chemotherapy, target therapy, radiation and surgery may be used, according to the etiology of MS. Among the latters, supportive therapies, interventional radiology procedures such as stenting may help manage this syndrome, despite the prognosis is poor in most cases and linked to the histology of the tumor, which therefore represents the most important prognostic factor.

Monitoring tumor growth rate to predict immune checkpoint inhibitors' treatment outcome in advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Radiological response assessment to immune checkpoint inhibitor is challenging due to atypical pattern of response and commonly used RECIST 1.1 criteria do not take into account the kinetics of tumor behavior. Our study aimed at evaluating the tumor growth rate (TGR) in addition to RECIST 1.1 criteria to assess the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS: Tumor real volume was calculated with a dedicated computed tomography (CT) software that semi-automatically assess tumor volume. Target lesions were identified according to RECIST 1.1. For each patient, we had 3 measurement of tumor volume. CT-1 was performed 8-12 weeks before ICI start, the CT at baseline for ICI was CT0, while CT + 1 was the first assessment after ICI. We calculated the percentage increase in tumor volume before (TGR1) and after immunotherapy (TGR2). Finally, we compared TGR1 and TGR2. If no progressive disease (PD), the group was disease control (DC). If PD but TGR2 < TGR1, it was called LvPD and if TGR2 ⩾ TGR1, HvPD. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients who received ICIs and 33 treated with chemotherapy (ChT) were included. In ICI group, 18 patients were HvPD, 22 LvPD, 21 DC. Median OS was 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.0-6.8, reference) for HvPD, 7.1 months (95% CI 5.4-8.8) for LvPD, p = 0.018, and 20.9 months (95% CI: 12.5-29.3) for DC, p < 0.001. In ChT group, 7 were categorized as HvPD, 17 as LvPD and 9 as DC. No difference in OS was observed in the ChT group (p = 0.786). CONCLUSION: In the presence of PD, a decrease in TGR may result in a clinical benefit in patients treated with ICI but not with chemotherapy. Monitoring TGR changes after ICIs administration can help physician in deciding to treat beyond PD.

Prognostic effect of body mass index in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with chemoimmunotherapy combinations.

INTRODUCTION: It has been recognized that increasing body mass index (BMI) is associated with improved outcome from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with various malignancies including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is unclear whether baseline BMI may influence outcomes from first-line chemoimmunotherapy combinations. METHODS: In this international multicenter study, we evaluated the association between baseline BMI, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients with stage IV NSCLC consecutively treated with first-line chemoimmunotherapy combinations. BMI was categorized according to WHO criteria. RESULTS: Among the 853 included patients, 5.3% were underweight; 46.4% were of normal weight; 33.8% were overweight; and 14.5% were obese. Overweight and obese patients were more likely aged ≥70 years (p=0.00085), never smokers (p<0.0001), with better baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status (p=0.0127), and had lower prevalence of central nervous system (p=0.0002) and liver metastases (p=0.0395). Univariable analyses showed a significant difference in the median OS across underweight (15.5 months), normal weight (14.6 months), overweight (20.9 months), and obese (16.8 months) patients (log-rank: p=0.045, log rank test for trend: p=0.131), while no difference was found with respect to the median PFS (log-rank for trend: p=0.510). Neither OS nor PFS was significantly associated with baseline BMI on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to what was observed in the context of chemotherapy-free ICI-based regimens, baseline BMI does not affect clinical outcomes from chemoimmunotherapy combinations in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Tumour burden and efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors.

Accumulating evidence suggests that a high tumour burden has a negative effect on anticancer immunity. The concept of tumour burden, simply defined as the total amount of cancer in the body, in contrast to molecular tumour burden, is often poorly understood by the wider medical community; nonetheless, a possible role exists in defining the optimal treatment strategy for many patients. Historically, tumour burden has been assessed using imaging. In particular, CT scans have been used to evaluate both the number and size of metastases as well as the number of organs involved. These methods are now often complemented by metabolic tumour burden, measured using the more recently developed 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG)-PET/CT. Serum-based biomarkers, such as lactate dehydrogenase, can also reflect tumour burden and are often also correlated with a poor response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Other circulating markers (such as circulating free tumour DNA and/or circulating tumour cells) are also attracting research interest as surrogate markers of tumour burden. In this Review, we summarize evidence supporting the utility of tumour burden as a biomarker to guide the use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors. We also describe data and provide perspective on the various tools used for tumour burden assessment, with a particular emphasis on future therapeutic strategies that might address the issue of inferior outcomes among patients with cancer with a high tumour burden.

PD-L1 Expression in Circulating Tumor Cells as a Promising Prognostic Biomarker in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a promising source of biological information in cancer. Data correlating PD-L1 expression in CTCs with patients' response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are still lacking. METHODS: This is a prospective single-center cohort study enrolling patients with advanced NSCLC. CTCs were identified and counted with the CellSearch system. PD-L1 expression on CTCs was assessed with phycoerythrin-conjugated anti-human PD-L1 antibody, clone MIH3 (BioLegend, USA). Primary endpoint was the correlation between the CTCs PD-L1 expression and overall survival (OS). Among secondary objectives, we evaluated the correlation between PD-L1 expression on CTCs and matched tumor tissue and the correlation of CTC number and baseline tumor size (BTS). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents as second- or third-line therapy were enrolled. Patients were divided into 3 groups: no CTC detectable (CTCnull, n = 15), PD-L1 positive CTC (CTCpos, n = 13), and PD-L1 negative CTC (CTCneg, n = 11). Median OS in patients with CTCneg was 2.2 months, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.8-3.6 (reference) versus 3.7 months, 95% CI, 0.1-7.5 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13-0.83; P = .019) in patients with CTCpos versus 16.0 months, 95% CI, 2.2-29.8 (HR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.45; P< .001) in patients with CTCnull. No correlation was found between PD-L1 expression on CTCs and on tumor tissue. CTC number was correlated with BTS. CONCLUSION: PD-L1 expression on CTCs is a promising biomarker in patients with NSCLC treated with ICIs. Further validation as predictive biomarker is needed.

Baseline total metabolic tumour volume on 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography as a promising biomarker in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with first-line pembrolizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, only a small proportion of patients benefit from ICIs. The aim of the present study is to assess whether 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ([18F]FDG-PET/CT)-derived parameters may be used as biomarkers in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving first-line pembrolizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective cohort study including patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IV) and Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50% treated with pembrolizumab. A control group of patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for EGFR-mutated NSCLC was also enrolled. Only patients with a positive [18F]18F-FDG PET/CT result within 60 days from treatment initiation were included.Total metabolic tumour volume (tMTV) was calculated for each lesion using a dedicated software (PET VCAR; GE Healthcare), which semiautomatically delineates the tumour's contours with a maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) threshold of 42% within the lesion. tMTV was obtained summing each lesion's MTV. Potential prognostic parameters for overall survival (OS) were analysed (tMTV, SUVmax, bone/liver metastasis, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio ≥4, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, lactate dehydrogenase above the upper limit of normal). RESULTS: Overall, 34 patients treated with first line-pembrolizumab and 40 patients treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors were included. In the pembrolizumab group, the median follow-up was 20.3, while the median OS was 4.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.3-9.1) for patients with tMTV ≥75 cm3 vs not reached (NR) for patients with tMTV <75 cm3 (95% CI = NR-NR; hazard ratio [HR] = 5.37; 95% CI = 1.72-16.77; p = 0.004). No difference was found in the control group (HR = 1.43; 95% CI = 0.61-3.34; p = 0.411). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that tMTV ≥75cm3 can be used as a prognostic biomarker of poor outcomes in patients with PD-L1-high advanced NSCLC treated with first-line pembrolizumab. This information could be useful for the selection of patients who may require the addition of chemotherapy to pembrolizumab.

CEA and CYFRA 21-1 as prognostic biomarker and as a tool for treatment monitoring in advanced NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

AIMS: To assess prognostic value of pre-therapy carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1) blood levels in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their early change as predictor of benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including patients with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC who received anti PD-1/PD-L1 in first or advanced lines of therapy in two institutions. A control cohort of patients treated only with chemotherapy has been enrolled as well. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients treated with nivolumab or atezolizumab were included in the test set, 74 treated with pembrolizumab first line in the validation set and 89 in the chemotherapy only cohort. CYFRA 21-1 >8 ng/mL was correlated with overall survival (OS) in the test set, validation set and in univariate and multivariate analysis (pooled cohort hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-2.93, p 0.003). Early 20% reduction after the third cycle was correlated with OS for CEA (HR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04-0.33; p < 0.001), and for CYFRA 21-1 (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.55; p 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: CYFRA 21-1 pre-therapy assessment provides clinicians with relevant prognostic information about patients treated with ICI. CEA and CYFRA 21-1 repeated measures could be useful as an early marker of benefit.

Comparison of Sequential Testing and Next Generation Sequencing in advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma patients - A single centre experience.

OBJECTIVES: Molecular diagnosis determines therapeutic strategies for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer - adenocarcinoma (NSCLC-A) but depends on resources availability. We compared a sequential single-gene testing algorithm to next generation sequencing in NSCLC-A to assess differences in terms of effectiveness, costs, tissue consumption and time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of advanced NSCLC-A patients treated at the Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital. The sequential testing includes a first analysis of EGFR and KRAS status with further molecular testing physician driven. The available NGS panel detects 35 hotspot mutations,19 amplifications and 23 rearrangements. RESULTS: We included 1758 patients; 1221 characterized with the sequential algorithm between January 2014 to February 2019 and 537 with Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) until January 2020. The prevalence of EGFR, ALK and KRAS alterations was similar between the stepwise and NGS group (16.5% vs 14.3%, 6.3% vs 6.3% and 36% vs 33.5%, respectively). Differently, ROS-1 rearrangements prevalence was higher in stepwise respect to NGS group (4.7% vs 0.7%). Similarly, the stepwise group presented higher prevalence than NGS for MET amplification (11.2% vs 2.2%), MET mutations (9.0% vs 2.4%), HER2 amplification (3.3% vs 1.9%) and mutations (9.8% vs 3.0%), and BRAF mutations (4.5% vs 5.6%). Among the NGS group other mutations were found in 141 patients (26.3%) and the presence of concurrent mutations in 131 (24.4%). The stepwise algorithm presented a relevant dropout rate that increased at each step, with 11.4%, 16.4% and 49.3% respectively for ALK, ROS1 and other analysis. Sequential testing's expenditure was 1375 € per patient, vs 770 € for NGS. Moreover, NGS testing can be performed with just a 25 µm slide respect to an estimated 33.3 µm slide for sequential strategy. CONCLUSION: NGS offered a less expensive and more reliable model of diagnosis respect to sequential one for patients affected by NSCLC-A.

ECOG performance status ≥2 as a prognostic factor in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors-A systematic review and meta-analysis of real world data.

OBJECTIVES: ICIs have been approved and are routinely administered regardless of performance status (PS), despite randomized clinical trials of ICIs alone or combined with chemotherapy or target therapy enrolled patients with ECOG PS 0 or 1, while patients with ECOG PS 2 or more were excluded. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a meta-analysis of available clinical studies exploring the prognostic impact of PS ≥ 2 on Overall Survival (OS), Progression Free Survival (PFS) or Overall Response Rate (ORR) in patients with non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy (any line). RESULTS: We reviewed 19 studies, comprising 3600 NSCLC patients, 757 of whom with ECOG PS > 1 (average 21.0%, range 6.0-48.6%). In the overall population PS ≥ 2 resulted in worse OS, PFS and ORR (OS pooled hazard ratio of 2.72; 95% CI: 2.03-3.63; I2 72.70%, p < 0.001; PFS pooled hazard ratio of 2.39; 95% CI 1.81-3.15, p < 0.0001; I2 73.03%; ORR pooled odds ratio 0.25; 95% CI 0.11-0.56, p 0.001; I2 0.00%). CONCLUSION: ECOG PS ≥ 2 retains an important prognostic validity in patients treated with ICI similar, in terms of effect size, to that reported for chemotherapy in NSCLC. The high level of heterogeneity for OS and PFS analysis (but not for ORR), not completely explained by the different proportion of ECOG 3-4 patients (ranging from 0% to 50% of the PS ≥ 2 population), could be the result of both patient heterogeneity within the PS 2 population and the subjectivity of ECOG PS assessment. Whether poorer PS is also a predictor of lower immunotherapy efficacy remains still to be demonstrated.

The 'surprise' question in advanced cancer patients: A prospective study among general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Using the 'surprise' question 'Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next year?' may improve physicians' prognostic accuracy and identify people appropriate for palliative care. AIM: Determine the prognostic accuracy of general practitioners asking the 'surprise' question about their patients with advanced (stage IV) cancer. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Between December 2011 and February 2012, 42 of 50 randomly selected general practitioners (Bologna area, Italy) prospectively classified 231 patients diagnosed with advanced cancer according to the 'surprise' question and supplied the status of each patient 1 year later. RESULTS: Of the 231 patients, general practitioners responded 'No' to the 'surprise' question for 126 (54.5%) and 'Yes' for 105 (45.5%). After 12 months, 104 (45.0%) patients had died; 87 (83.7%) were in the 'No' group. The sensitivity of the 'surprise' question was 69.3%; the specificity was 83.6%. Positive predictive value was 83.8%; negative predictive value was 69.0%. The answer to the 'surprise' question was significantly correlated with survival at 1 year. Patients in the 'No' group had an odds ratio of 11.55 (95% confidence interval: 5.83-23.28) and a hazard ratio of 6.99 (95% confidence interval: 3.75-13.03) of being dead in the next year compared to patients in the 'Yes' group (p = 0.000 for both odds ratio and hazard ratio). CONCLUSION: When general practitioners used the 'surprise' question for their patients with advanced cancer, the accuracy of survival prognosis was very high. This has clinical potential as a method to identify patients who might benefit from palliative care.