PURPOSE Durvalumab significantly improves overall survival for patients with unresectable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer and no progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Building upon that standard of care, COAST is a phase II study of durvalumab alone or combined with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab as consolidation therapy in this setting. METHODS Patients with unresectable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no progression after cCRT were randomly assigned 1:1:1, ≤ 42 days post-cCRT, to durvalumab alone or combined with oleclumab or monalizumab for up to 12 months, stratified by histology. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). RESULTS Between January 2019 and July 2020, 189 patients were randomly assigned. At this interim analysis (data cutoff, May 17, 2021), median follow-up was 11.5 months (range, 0.4-23.4 months; all patients). Confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7) versus durvalumab (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6 to 29.2). Progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged with both combinations versus durvalumab (plus oleclumab: hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.75; and plus monalizumab: hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.72), with higher 12-month PFS rates (plus oleclumab: 62.6% [95% CI, 48.1 to 74.2] and plus monalizumab: 72.7% [95% CI, 58.8 to 82.6] v durvalumab alone: 33.9% [95% CI, 21.2 to 47.1]). All-cause grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 40.7%, 27.9%, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Both combinations increased ORR and prolonged PFS versus durvalumab alone. Safety was similar across arms with no new or significant safety signals identified with either combination. These data support their further evaluation in a phase III trial.

Background: Survival data support the use of first-line osimertinib as the standard of care for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)epositive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it remains unclear whether upfront osimertinib is superior to sequential first-or second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) followed by osimertinib for all patients. It is impossible to predict which patients are at high risk of progression, and this constitutes a major limitation of the sequential TKI approach. Patients and methods: A total of 830 plasma samples from 228 patients with stage IV, EGFRpositive NSCLC who were treated with first-line TKIs were analysed by digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR). Results: The circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels helped to identify patients with significantly improved survival rate, regardless of the treatment. Patients treated with first-or second-generation TKIs (N Z 189) with EGFR mutations in plasma at a mutant allele frequency (MAF) <7% before treatment initiation (low-risk patients) or who were ctDNA negative after 3 or 6 months of treatment and with an MAF <7% at diagnosis (high responders) had two-thirds lower risk of death than patients in the opposite situation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] Z 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23e0.64 and HR Z 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12e0.42, respectively). The median overall survival (OS) for low-risk patients and high responders treated with first-or second-generation TKIs was 34.2 months and not reached, respectively, regardless of second-line treatment. There were no significant difference in OS between lowrisk or high-responder patients treated upfront with osimertinib (N Z 39) and those treated under a sequential approach with osimertinib (N Z 60). Median OS was not reached in both cases. Conclusions: Pre-treatment ctDNA levels identify low-risk patients, who may benefit from sequential TKI treatment. Information regarding EGFR mutation clearance can help to improve patient selection.

Introduction Due to the importance of lung cancer early treatment because of its severity and extent worldwide a systematic literature review was conducted about the impact of delays in waiting times on the disease prognosis. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic search of observational studies (2010-2020) including adult patients diagnosed with lung cancer and reporting healthcare timelines and their clinical consequences. Results We included 38 articles containing data on waiting times and prognosis; only 31 articles linked this forecast to a specific waiting time. We identified 41 healthcare time intervals and found medians of 6-121 days from diagnosis to treatment and 4-19.5 days from primary care to specialist visit: 37.5% of the intervals indicated better prognosis with longer waiting times. Conclusions All articles emphasized that waiting times must be reduced to achieve good management and prognosis of lung cancer. Further prospective studies are needed on the relationship between waiting times and prognosis of lung cancer.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cabazitaxel administration, in a real-world setting, is tolerated by Spanish patients with mCRPC, and the AEs are manageable.

ImportanceAntiangiogenic drug combinations with anti–programmed cell death 1 protein and anti–programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) agents are a novel treatment option for lung cancer. However, survival remains limited, and the activity of these combinations for tumors with high tumor mutation burden (TMB) is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical benefits and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for patients with high-TMB advanced nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial (Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in First-Line NSCLC Patients [TELMA]) included treatment-naive patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed stage IIIB-IV nonsquamous NSCLC with TMB of 10 or more mutations/megabase and no EGFR, ALK, STK11, MDM2, or ROS1 alterations. From May 2019 through January 2021, patients were assessed at 13 sites in Spain, with follow-up until February 28, 2022.InterventionsParticipants were given atezolizumab, 1200 mg, plus bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg, on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Treatment was continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, patient withdrawal, investigator decision, or death.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1 criteria); PFS was defined as the time from enrollment to disease progression or death. Adverse events were monitored according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.ResultsA total of 307 patients were assessed for trial eligibility, of whom 266 were ineligible for enrollment. Of the 41 patients enrolled, 3 did not fulfill all inclusion criteria and were excluded. The remaining 38 patients (28 [73.7%] male; mean [SD] age, 63.7 [8.3] years) constituted the per-protocol population. The 12-month PFS rate was 51.3% (95% CI, 34.2%-66.0%), which met the primary end point. The 12-month overall survival (OS) rate was 72.0% (95% CI, 54.1%-83.9%). The median PFS was 13.0 months (95% CI, 7.9-18.0 months), and the median OS was not reached. Of the 38 patients, 16 (42.1%) achieved an objective response and 30 (78.9%) achieved disease control. The median time to response was 2.8 months (IQR, 2.8-3.58 months), with a median duration of response of 11.7 months (range, 3.57-22.4 months; the response was ongoing at cutoff). Of 16 responses, 8 (50.0%) were ongoing. Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. For atezolizumab, the most common adverse events were fatigue (6 [15.8%]) and pruritus (6 [15.8%]). For bevacizumab, they were hypertension (10 [26.3%]) and proteinuria (4 [10.5%]). Drug discontinuation occurred in 2 patients receiving atezolizumab (5.3%) and 3 patients receiving bevacizumab (7.9%). PD-L1 levels were not associated with response, PFS, or OS.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that atezolizumab with bevacizumab is a potential treatment for high-TMB nonsquamous NSCLC.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03836066

No abstract

Multidisciplinary care is needed to decide the best therapeutic approach and to provide optimal care to patients with lung cancer (LC). Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are optimal strategies for the management of patients with LC and have been associated with better outcomes, such as an increase in quality of life and survival. The Spanish Lung Cancer Group has promoted this review about the current situation of the existing national LC-MDTs, which also offers a set of excellence requirements and quality indicators to achieve the best care in any patient with LC. Time and sufficient resources; leadership; administrative and institutional support; and recording of activity are key factors for the success of LC-MDTs. A set of excellence requirements in terms of staff, resources and organization of the LC-MDT have been proposed. At last, a list of quality indicators has been agreed to achieve and measure the performance of current LC-MDTs.