Summary Background Retrospective evidence indicates that disease progression after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) occurs most often at sites of disease known to exist at baseline. However, the potential benefit of aggressive local consolidative therapy (LCT) on progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with oligometastatic NSCLC is unknown. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized study (NCT01725165; currently ongoing but not recruiting participants) to assess the effect of LCT on progression-free survival ((PFS). Eligible patients hadwere (1) histologic confirmation of (2) stage IV NSCLC, (3) ≤3 disease sites after systemic therapy, and (4) no disease progression before randomization. Front line therapy was ≥4 cycles of platinum doublet therapy or ≥3 months of inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) for patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements. Patients were randomized to either LCT ([chemo]radiation or resection of all lesions) +/− maintenance therapy versus maintenance therapy/observation only. Maintenance therapy was recommended based on a list of approved regimens, and observation was defined as close surveillance without cytotoxic therapy. Randomization was not masked and was balanced dynamically on five factors: number of metastases, response to initial therapy, central nervous system metastases, intrathoracic nodal status, and EGFR/ALK status. The primary endpoint was PFS, powered to detect an increase from 4 months to 7 months (hazard ratio [HR}=0.57) using intent-to-treat analysis. The plan was to study 94 randomized patients, with an interim analysis at 44 events. PFS, overall survival (OS), and time to develop a new lesion were compared between arms with log-rank tests. Results The study was terminated early after treatment of 49 patients (25 LCT, 24 control), when at a median follow-up time for PFS of 18.7 months, the median PFS time in the LCT group was 11.9 months (90% confidence interval [CI] 5.72 ,20.90) versus 3.9 months (90% CI 2.30, 6.64) in the maintenance group (HR=0.35, 90% CI 0.18,0.66, log rank p=0.005). Toxicity was similar between groups, with no grade 4–5 events. Grade 3 or higher adverse events in the maintenance therapy arm were fatigue (n=1) and anemia (n=1). In the LCT arm, Grade 3 events were: esophagitis (n=2), anemia (n=1), pneumothorax (n=1), and abdominal pain (n=1). Overall survival data are immature, with only 14 deaths recorded. Interpretation LCT +/− maintenance therapy for patients with ≤3 metastases from NSCLC that did not progress after initial systemic therapy improved PFS relative to maintenance therapy alone. These findings imply that aggressive local therapy should be further explored in phase III trials as a standard treatment option in this clinical scenario.

PURPOSE Our previously published findings reported that local consolidative therapy (LCT) with radiotherapy or surgery improved progression-free survival (PFS) and delayed new disease in patients with oligometastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that did not progress after front-line systemic therapy. Herein, we present the longer-term overall survival (OS) results accompanied by additional secondary end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter, randomized, phase II trial enrolled patients with stage IV NSCLC, three or fewer metastases, and no progression at 3 or more months after front-line systemic therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance therapy or observation (MT/O) or to LCT to all active disease sites. The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points were OS, toxicity, and the appearance of new lesions. All analyses were two sided, and P values less than .10 were deemed significant. RESULTS The Data Safety and Monitoring Board recommended early trial closure after 49 patients were randomly assigned because of a significant PFS benefit in the LCT arm. With an updated median follow-up time of 38.8 months (range, 28.3 to 61.4 months), the PFS benefit was durable (median, 14.2 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 23.1 months] with LCT v 4.4 months [95% CI, 2.2 to 8.3 months] with MT/O; P = .022). We also found an OS benefit in the LCT arm (median, 41.2 months [95% CI, 18.9 months to not reached] with LCT v 17.0 months [95% CI, 10.1 to 39.8 months] with MT/O; P = .017). No additional grade 3 or greater toxicities were observed. Survival after progression was longer in the LCT group (37.6 months with LCT v 9.4 months with MT/O; P = .034). Of the 20 patients who experienced progression in the MT/O arm, nine received LCT to all lesions after progression, and the median OS was 17 months (95% CI, 7.8 months to not reached). CONCLUSION In patients with oligometastatic NSCLC that did not progress after front-line systemic therapy, LCT prolonged PFS and OS relative to MT/O.

The cytokine erythropoietin (Epo) is tissue-protective in preclinical models of ischemic, traumatic, toxic, and inflammatory injuries. We have recently characterized Epo derivatives that do not bind to the Epo receptor (EpoR) yet are tissue-protective. For example, carbamylated Epo (CEpo) does not stimulate erythropoiesis, yet it prevents tissue injury in a wide variety of in vivo and in vitro models. These observations suggest that another receptor is responsible for the tissue-protective actions of Epo. Notably, prior investigation suggests that EpoR physically interacts with the common ␤ receptor (␤cR), the signal-transducing subunit shared by the granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor, and the IL-3 and IL-5 receptors. However, because ␤cR knockout mice exhibit normal erythrocyte maturation, ␤cR is not required for erythropoiesis. We hypothesized that ␤cR in combination with the EpoR expressed by nonhematopoietic cells constitutes a tissueprotective receptor. In support of this hypothesis, membrane proteins prepared from rat brain, heart, liver, or kidney were greatly enriched in EpoR after passage over either Epo or CEpo columns but covalently bound in a complex with ␤cR. Further, antibodies against EpoR coimmunoprecipitated ␤cR from membranes prepared from neuronal-like P-19 cells that respond to Epo-induced tissue protection. Immunocytochemical studies of spinal cord neurons and cardiomyocytes protected by Epo demonstrated cellular colocalization of Epo ␤cR and EpoR. Finally, as predicted by the hypothesis, neither Epo nor CEpo was active in cardiomyocyte or spinal cord injury models performed in the ␤cR knockout mouse. These data support the concept that EpoR and ␤cR comprise a tissue-protective heteroreceptor.

Background:Although clinical studies have shown promise for targeting PD1/PDL1 signaling in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the regulation of PDL1 expression is poorly understood. Here, we show that PDL1 is regulated by p53 via miR-34.Methods:p53 wild-type and p53-deficient cell lines (p53–/– and p53+/+ HCT116, p53-inducible H1299, and p53-knockdown H460) were used to determine if p53 regulates PDL1 via miR-34. PDL1 and miR-34a expression were analyzed in samples from patients with NSCLC and mutated p53 vs wild-type p53 tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas for Lung Adenocarcinoma (TCGA LUAD). We confirmed that PDL1 is a direct target of miR-34 with western blotting and luciferase assays and used a p53R172HΔg/+K-rasLA1/+ syngeneic mouse model (n = 12) to deliver miR-34a–loaded liposomes (MRX34) plus radiotherapy (XRT) and assessed PDL1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). A two-sided t test was applied to compare the mean between different treatments.Results:We found that p53 regulates PDL1 via miR-34, which directly binds to the PDL1 3’ untranslated region in models of NSCLC (fold-change luciferase activity to control group, mean for miR-34a = 0.50, SD = 0.2, P < .001; mean for miR-34b = 0.52, SD = 0.2, P = .006; and mean for miR-34c = 0.59, SD = 0.14, and P = .006). Therapeutic delivery of MRX34, currently the subject of a phase I clinical trial, promoted TILs (mean of CD8 expression percentage of control group = 22.5%, SD = 1.9%; mean of CD8 expression percentage of MRX34 = 30.1%, SD = 3.7%, P = .016, n = 4) and reduced CD8+PD1+ cells in vivo (mean of CD8/PD1 expression percentage of control group = 40.2%, SD = 6.2%; mean of CD8/PD1 expression percentage of MRX34 = 20.3%, SD = 5.1%, P = .001, n = 4). Further, MRX34 plus XRT increased CD8+ cell numbers more than either therapy alone (mean of CD8 expression percentage of MRX34 plus XRT to control group = 44.2%, SD = 8.7%, P = .004, n = 4). Finally, miR-34a delivery reduced the numbers of radiation-induced macrophages (mean of F4-80 expression percentage of control group = 52.4%, SD = 1.7%; mean of F4-80 expression percentage of MRX34 = 40.1%, SD = 3.5%, P = .008, n = 4) and T-regulatory cells.Conclusions:We identified a novel mechanism by which tumor immune evasion is regulated by p53/miR-34/PDL1 axis. Our results suggest that delivery of miRNAs with standard therapies, such as XRT, may represent a novel therapeutic approach for lung cancer.

No abstract

Radiomics is the use of quantitative imaging features extracted from medical images to characterize tumor pathology or heterogeneity. Features measured at pretreatment have successfully predicted patient outcomes in numerous cancer sites. This project was designed to determine whether radiomics features measured from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) change during therapy and whether those features (delta-radiomics features) can improve prognostic models. Features were calculated from pretreatment and weekly intra-treatment computed tomography images for 107 patients with stage III NSCLC. Pretreatment images were used to determine feature-specific image preprocessing. Linear mixed-effects models were used to identify features that changed significantly with dose-fraction. Multivariate models were built for overall survival, distant metastases, and local recurrence using only clinical factors, clinical factors and pretreatment radiomics features, and clinical factors, pretreatment radiomics features, and delta-radiomics features. All of the radiomics features changed significantly during radiation therapy. For overall survival and distant metastases, pretreatment compactness improved the c-index. For local recurrence, pretreatment imaging features were not prognostic, while texture-strength measured at the end of treatment significantly stratified high- and low-risk patients. These results suggest radiomics features change due to radiation therapy and their values at the end of treatment may be indicators of tumor response.

No abstract

Background: Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence. Methods: A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature. Results: Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, singlecentre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed. Conclusion: While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1-5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits.