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.

No abstract

Purpose We previously demonstrated the association between epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and drug response in lung cancer using an EMT signature derived in cancer cell lines. Given the contribution of tumor microenvironments to EMT, we extended our investigation of EMT to patient tumors from 11 cancer types to develop a pan-cancer EMT signature. Experimental Design Using the pan-cancer EMT signature, we conducted an integrated, global analysis of genomic and proteomic profiles associated with EMT across 1,934 tumors including breast, lung, colon, ovarian, and bladder cancers. Differences in outcome and in vitro drug response corresponding to expression of the pan-cancer EMT signature were also investigated. Results Compared to the lung cancer EMT signature, the patient-derived, pan-cancer EMT signature encompasses a set of core EMT genes that correlate even more strongly with known EMT markers across diverse tumor types and identifies differences in drug sensitivity and global molecular alterations at the DNA, RNA, and protein levels. Among those changes associated with EMT, pathway analysis revealed a strong correlation between EMT and immune activation. Further supervised analysis demonstrated high expression of immune checkpoints and other druggable immune targets such as PD1, PD-L1, CTLA4, OX40L, and PDL2, in tumors with the most mesenchymal EMT scores. Elevated PD-L1 protein expression in mesenchymal tumors was confirmed by immunohistochemistry in an independent lung cancer cohort. Conclusions This new signature provides a novel, patient-based, histology-independent tool for the investigation of EMT and offers insights into potential novel therapeutic targets for mesenchymal tumors, independent of cancer type, including immune checkpoints.

Improvements in outcomes for patients with resectable lung cancers have plateaued. Clinical trials in this disease using overall survival as the primary endpoint require a decade or longer to complete, are expensive, and limit innovation. A surrogate for survival, such as pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, has the potential to improve the efficiency of trials and expedite advances. ≤10% residual viable tumor following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, termed here major pathologic response meets criteria for a surrogate: it strongly associates with improved survival, is reflective of treatment impact, and captures the magnitude of the treatment benefit on survival. We support the incorporation of major pathologic response as a surrogate endpoint for survival in future trials for resectable lung cancers. Additional prospective studies are needed to confirm the validity and reproducibility of major pathologic response within individual histologic and molecular subgroups and with novel therapeutics.

A B S T R A C T PurposeTo evaluate induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (TPF) followed by surgery and postoperative radiotherapy versus up-front surgery and postoperative radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced resectable oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Patients and MethodsA prospective open-label phase III trial was conducted. Eligibility criteria included untreated stage III or IVA locally advanced resectable OSCC. Patients received two cycles of TPF induction chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 on day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 750 mg/m 2 on days 1 to 5) followed by radical surgery and postoperative radiotherapy (54 to 66 Gy) versus up-front radical surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included local control and safety. ResultsOf the 256 patients enrolled onto this trial, 222 completed the full treatment protocol. There were no unexpected toxicities, and induction chemotherapy did not increase perioperative morbidity. The clinical response rate to induction chemotherapy was 80.6%. After a median follow-up of 30 months, there was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.977; 95% CI, 0.634 to 1.507; P ϭ .918) or disease-free survival (HR, 0.974; 95% CI, 0.654 to 1.45; P ϭ .897) between patients treated with and without TPF induction. Patients in the induction chemotherapy arm with a clinical response or favorable pathologic response (Յ 10% viable tumor cells) had superior OS and locoregional and distant control. ConclusionOur study failed to demonstrate that TPF induction chemotherapy improves survival compared with up-front surgery in patients with resectable stage III or IVA OSCC.