Background: First-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Despite higher response rates and prolonged progression free survival (PFS) compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy, a subset of these patients do not receive prolonged benefit from these agents. We investigate if the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and other markers of cachexia and chronic inflammation correlate with worse outcomes in these patients. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of 137 patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC treated with TKIs at Rush University Medical Center and University of Chicago Medicine from August 2011 to July 2019, with outcomes followed through July 2020. The predictive value of NLR and body mass index (BMI) was assessed at the start of therapy, and after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment by univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: On univariable analysis, NLR ≥ 5 or higher NLR on a continuous scale were both associated with significantly worse PFS and overall survival (OS) at treatment initiation, and after 6 or 12 weeks of treatment. On multivariable analysis, NLR ≥ 5 was associated with increased risk of death at 12 weeks of therapy (HR 3.002, 95% CI 1.282–7.029, p = 0.011), as was higher NLR on a continuous scale (HR 1.231, 95% CI 1.063–1.425, p = 0.0054). There was no difference in PFS and OS and amongst BMI categories though number of disease sites and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was associated with worse PFS and OS. Conclusions: Patients with NLR ≥ 5 have a worse median PFS and median OS than patients with NLR < 5. NLR may have value as a predictive biomarker and may be useful for selecting patients for therapy intensification in the front-line setting either at diagnosis or after 12 weeks on therapy. NLR needs to be validated prospectively.

Saliva has significant advantages as a test medium for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients, such as ease of collection, minimal requirement of supplies and trained personnel, and safety. Comprehensive validation in a large cohort of prospectively collected specimens with unknown SARS-CoV-2 status should be performed to evaluate the potential and limitations of saliva-based testing. We developed a saliva-based testing pipeline for detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids using real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) readouts, and measured samples from 137 outpatients tested at a curbside testing facility and 29 inpatients hospitalized for COVID-19. These measurements were compared to the nasal swab results for each patient performed by a certified microbiology laboratory. We found that our saliva testing positively detects 100% (RT-PCR) and 93.75% (ddPCR) of curbside patients that were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive by the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) certified nasal swab testing assay. Quantification of viral loads by ddPCR revealed an extremely wide range, with 1 million-fold difference between individual patients. Our results demonstrate for both community screening and hospital settings that saliva testing reliability is on par with that of the nasal swabs in detecting infected cases, and has potential for higher sensitivity when combined with ddPCR in detecting low-abundance viral loads that evade traditional testing methods.