Navigational Bronchoscopy or Transthoracic Needle Biopsy for Lung Nodules
Non-inferior in diagnosing malignant or benign lesions, and safer (less pneumothorax). The question remains about the amount of tissue for further testing.
FCS medical oncologist and hematologist Ernesto Bustinza-Linares, MD has co-authored an abstract published in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Journal, JCO Precision Oncology, that uncovers a new testing method to determine personalized care options for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The abstract’s authors address the limitations of existing guidelines that recommend checkpoint immunotherapy, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, for treating NSCLC, which often discounts patient variability and immune factors. The findings from the study show that by incorporating additional plasma proteome-based testing, combined with the standard protein inhibitor testing, clear differences in patient outcomes were observed after applying targeted treatments based on the testing results.
Current guidelines for the management of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver mutations recommend checkpoint immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy. This approach fails to account for individual patient variability and host immune factors and often results in less-than-ideal outcomes. To address the limitations of the current guidelines, we developed and subsequently blindly validated a machine learning algorithm using pretreatment plasma proteomic profiles for personalized treatment decisions.
We conducted a multicenter observational trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04056247) of patients undergoing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–based therapy (n = 540) and an additional patient cohort receiving chemotherapy (n = 85) who consented to pretreatment plasma and clinical data collection. Plasma proteome profiling was performed using SomaScan Assay v4.1.
Our test demonstrates a strong association between model output and clinical benefit (CB) from PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–based treatments, evidenced by high concordance between predicted and observed CB (R2 = 0.98, P < .001). The test categorizes patients as either PROphet-positive or PROphet-negative and further stratifies patient outcomes beyond PD-L1 expression levels. The test successfully differentiates between PROphet-negative patients exhibiting high tumor PD-L1 levels (≥50%) who have enhanced overall survival when treated with a combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.23 [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.51], P = .0003). By contrast, PROphet-positive patients show comparable outcomes when treated with immunotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.44], P = .424).
Plasma proteome–based testing of individual patients, in combination with standard PD-L1 testing, distinguishes patient subsets with distinct differences in outcomes from PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–based therapies. These data suggest that this approach can improve the precision of first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC.
Non-inferior in diagnosing malignant or benign lesions, and safer (less pneumothorax). The question remains about the amount of tissue for further testing.
Another option for HER-2 lung cancer patients. 71% had an objective response with a duration of 14.1 months and progression-free survival (PFS) of 12.4 months. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in 17% of patients. Some patients had been previously treated with HER-2 ADC therapy.
The phase II trial of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 blockade plus chemotherapy in borderline resectable and unresectable stage III NSCLC showed a significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) with the combination (24.1 vs 10.6 months) compared to chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62. Major pathological response rates were higher with immunotherapy (44.7% vs 22.3%), and no new safety signals were noted. The regimen improved surgical resection rates (68% vs 52%) without increasing perioperative complications. This validates chemoIO in the neoadjuvant setting particularly in whom we wish to pursue resection or avoid chemoradiation. It would be great to see this compared to chemoradiation followed by immunotherapy rather than chemotherapy alone.
Results showed the median event-free survival (EFS) was 54.8 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 20.9 months with chemotherapy. Three-year EFS rates were 56% vs 44%. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 73% vs 61% pathologic complete response rates were 20.4% vs 4.6%. This was three cycles of nivolumab and one dose of ipilimumab vs chemotherapy.
Dato showed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 42.7% with a complete response (CR) of 4.3%. The median duration of response was 7.0 months, with a disease control rate of 86.3% and a median overall survival (OS) of 15.6 months. This could be another option for EGFR mutant patients who had multiple lines of therapy.