Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Rechallenge Efficacy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) rechallenge could represent an attractive option in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet no sufficient data supporting this strategy are available. This retrospective observational multicenter national study explored the efficacy of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) rechallenge in advanced NSCLC patients, looking for potential clinical features associated with greater outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 144 advanced NSCLC patients whose disease was rechallenged with ICPis after ≥ 12 weeks of discontinuation. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from first or second ICPi initiation to disease progression (PFS1 and PFSR, respectively), death, or last follow-up (OS1, OSR), respectively. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) age was 63 (58-70) years. Most patients were male (67%) and smokers (87%). Most had adenocarcinomas (62%) and/or stage IV disease at diagnosis (66%). The best response at rechallenge was not associated with that under the first ICPi (P = 1.10-1). The median (95% confidence interval) PFS1 and PFSR were 13 (10-16.5) and 4.4 (3-6.5) months, respectively. The median (95% confidence interval) OS1 and OSR were 3.3 (2.9-3.9) and 1.5 (1.0-2.1) years, respectively. Longer PFSR and OSR were found in patients discontinuing first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision, those not receiving systemic treatment between the two ICPis, and those with good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at rechallenge. Only performance status proved to affect outcomes at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients discontinuing first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision, those able to maintain a treatment-free period, and those with good performance status may be potential candidates for rechallenge.

Safety and Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Cancer and Preexisting Autoimmune Disease: A Nationwide, Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer therapy frequently induce immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs). Therefore, most patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases have been excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICIs in patients with preexisting autoimmune disease and cancer. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2017 to January 2018 via 3 French national networks of experts in oncology and autoimmunity. Adults with preexisting autoimmune disease who were receiving ICIs were assessed for the occurrence of flare of preexisting autoimmune disease, other IRAEs, and cancer response. RESULTS: The study included 112 patients who were followed up for a median of 8 months. The most frequent preexisting autoimmune diseases were psoriasis (n = 31), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 20), and inflammatory bowel disease (n = 14). Twenty-four patients (22%) were receiving immunosuppressive therapy at ICI initiation. Autoimmune disease flare and/or other IRAE(s) occurred in 79 patients (71%), including flare of preexisting autoimmune disease in 53 patients (47%) and/or other IRAE(s) in 47 patients (42%), with a need for immunosuppressive therapy in 48 patients (43%) and permanent discontinuation of ICI in 24 patients (21%). The median progression-free survival was shorter in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy at ICI initiation (3.8 months versus 12 months; P = 0.006), confirmed by multivariable analysis. The median progression-free survival was shorter in patients who experienced a flare of preexisting autoimmune disease or other IRAE, with a trend toward better survival in the subgroup without immunosuppressant use or ICI discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that flares or IRAEs occur frequently but are mostly manageable without ICI discontinuation in patients with a preexisting autoimmune disease. Immunosuppressive therapy at baseline is associated with poorer outcomes.

Identification of I1171N resistance mutation in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer tumor sample and circulating tumor DNA.

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is sensitive to ALK inhibitor therapy, but resistance invariably develops and can be mediated by certain secondary mutations. The detection of these mutations is useful to guide treatment decisions, but tumors are not always easily accessible to re-biopsy. We report the case of a patient with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who presented acquired resistance to crizotinib and then alectinib. Sequencing analyses of DNA from a liver metastasis biopsy sample and circulating tumor DNA both found the same I1171N ALK kinase domain mutation, known to confer resistance to certain ALK inhibitors. However, the patient then received ceritinib, a 2nd generation ALK inhibitor, and achieved another partial response. This case underlines how ALK resistance mutation detection in peripheral blood could be a reliable, safer, and less invasive alternative to tissue-based samples in NSCLC.

Sunitinib in patients with advanced thymic malignancies: Cohort from the French RYTHMIC network.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a potent oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFRs, KIT, and PDGFRs. In a single arm phase II trial, sunitinib has demonstrated its potential activity in refractory thymic carcinoma (TC) and thymoma (T). Taking advantage of the French RYTHMIC network prospective database, we investigated the off-label efficacy of sunitinib in previously-treated thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) patients not included in a clinical trial. METHODS: RYTHMIC database started in 2012, and prospectively collects clinical, imaging, treatment, and follow-up data of all patients diagnosed with TET, for whom management is discussed at a national multidisciplinary tumor board. All patients who received sunitinib were selected for this analysis. RESULTS: 28 patients from 7 institutions were identified, including 20 TC and 8T; 32% of patients were females, and median age was 50 years. Fifteen patients (54%) received sunitinib as ≥4th line treatment. The initial daily dose of sunitinib was 50mg in 11 patients, 37.5mg in 16 patients and 25mg in 1 patient. Sunitinib adverse events were all manageable and tolerable; 8 patients had to stop sunitinib due to toxicity after a median duration of treatment of 2.7 months. In the overall population, disease control rate was of 63% (86% for T, and 55% for TC); overall response rate was 22% (29% for T, and 20% for TC). Median PFS in the whole population was 3.7 months (5.4 months for T, and 3.3 months for TC, p=0.097). The median overall survival in the whole population was 15.4 months: survival was not reached for T, and was 12.3 months for TC patients (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Sunitinib is an active treatment in TETs irrespective of histological subtype, supporting the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors with anti-angiogenic activity as alternative treatment options in refractory disease.

Efficacy of pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced NSCLC after either treatment-free interval or maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib in IFCT-GFPC 05-02 phase III study.

INTRODUCTION: Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT-GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. METHODS: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm. RESULTS: Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.