Background: The ALEX study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the primary data cut-off (9 February 2017). We report mature PFS (cut-off: 30 November 2018) and overall survival (OS) data up to 5 years (cut-off: 29 November 2019). Patients and methods: Patients with stage III/IV ALK-positive NSCLC were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg (n ¼ 152) or crizotinib 250 mg (n ¼ 151) until disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal or death. Primary end point: investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included objective response rate, OS and safety. Results: Mature PFS data showed significantly prolonged investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32e0.58; median PFS 34.8 versus 10.9 months crizotinib]. Median duration of OS follow-up: 48.2 months alectinib, 23.3 months crizotinib. OS data remain immature (37% of events). Median OS was not reached with alectinib versus 57.4 months with crizotinib (stratified HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46e0.98). The 5-year OS rate was 62.5% (95% CI 54.3e70.8) with alectinib and 45.5% (95% CI 33.6e57.4) with crizotinib, with 34.9% and 8.6% of patients still on study treatment, respectively. The OS benefit of alectinib was seen in patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline [HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.34e1.00)] and those without [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.45 e1.26)]. Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib (28.1 versus 10.8 months), and no new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Mature PFS data from ALEX confirmed significant improvement in PFS for alectinib over crizotinib in ALKpositive NSCLC. OS data remain immature, with a higher 5-year OS rate with alectinib versus crizotinib. This is the first global randomized study to show clinically meaningful improvement in OS for a next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive NSCLC. Clinical trials number: NCT02075840.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R) protein expression, mRNA expression, and gene copy number in surgically resected non–small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) in relation to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression, patient characteristics, and prognosis.Patients and MethodsOne hundred eighty-nine patients with NSCLC who underwent curative pulmonary resection were studied (median follow-up, 5.3 years). IGF1R protein expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) with two anti-IGF1R antibodies (n = 179). EGFR protein expression was assessed with PharmDx kit. IGF1R gene expression was evaluated using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) from 114 corresponding fresh-frozen samples. IGF1R gene copy number was assessed by fluorescent in situ hybridization using customized probes (n = 181).ResultsIGF1R IHC score was higher in squamous cell carcinomas versus other histologies (P < .001) and associated with stage (P = .03) but not survival (P = .46). IGF1R and EGFR protein expression showed significant correlation (r = 0.30; P < .001). IGF1R gene expression by qRT-PCR was higher in squamous cell versus other histologies (P = .006) and did not associate with other clinical features nor survival (P = .73). Employing criteria previously established for EGFR copy number, patients with IGF1R amplification/high polysomy (n = 48; 27%) had 3-year survival of 58%, patients with low polysomy (n = 87; 48%) had 3-year survival of 47% and patients with trisomy/disomy (n = 46; 25%) had 3-year survival of 35%, respectively (P = .024). Prognostic value of high IGF1R gene copy number was confirmed in multivariate analysis.ConclusionIGF1R protein expression is higher in squamous cell versus other histologies and correlates with EGFR expression. IGF1R protein and gene expression does not associate with survival, whereas high IGF1R gene copy number harbors positive prognostic value.

The COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by a fast and global spread during the first months of 2020, has prompted the development of a structured set of recommendations for cancer care management, to maintain the highest possible standards. Within this framework, it is crucial to ensure no disruption to essential oncological services and guarantee the optimal care.This is a structured proposal for the management of lung cancer, comprising three levels of priorities, namely: tier 1 (high priority), tier 2 (medium priority) and tier 3 (low priority)—defined according to the criteria of the Cancer Care Ontario, Huntsman Cancer Institute and Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.The manuscript emphasises the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and reconsiders all steps from diagnosis, staging and treatment.These recommendations should, therefore, serve as guidance for prioritising the different aspects of cancer care to mitigate the possible negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of our patients.As the situation is rapidly evolving, practical actions are required to guarantee the best patients’ treatment while protecting and respecting their rights, safety and well-being. In this environment, cancer practitioners have great responsibilities: provide timely, appropriate, compassionate and justified cancer care, while protecting themselves and their patients from being infected with COVID-19. In case of shortages, resources must be distributed fairly. Consequently, the following recommendations can be applied with significant nuances, depending on the time and location for their use, considering variable constraints imposed to the health systems. An exceptional flexibility is required from cancer caregivers.