Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for up to 85% of all lung cancers. The last few years have seen the development of a new staging system, diagnostic procedures such as liquid biopsy, treatments like immunotherapy, as well as deeper molecular knowledge; so, more options can be offered to patients with driver mutations. Groups with specific treatments account for around 25% and demonstrate significant increases in overall survival, and in some subgroups, it is important to evaluate each treatment alternative in accordance with scientific evidence, and even more so with immunotherapy. New treatments similarly mean that we must reconsider what should be done in oligometastatic disease where local treatment attains greater value.

Introduction: Due to the importance of lung cancer early treatment because of its severity and extent worldwide a systematic literature review was conducted about the impact of delays in waiting times on the disease prognosis. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic search of observational studies (2010-2020) including adult patients diagnosed with lung cancer and reporting healthcare timelines and their clinical consequences. Results: We included 38 articles containing data on waiting times and prognosis; only 31 articles linked this forecast to a specific waiting time. We identified 41 healthcare time intervals and found medians of 6-121 days from diagnosis to treatment and 4-19.5 days from primary care to specialist visit: 37.5% of the intervals indicated better prognosis with longer waiting times. Conclusions: All articles emphasized that waiting times must be reduced to achieve good management and prognosis of lung cancer. Further prospective studies are needed on the relationship between waiting times and prognosis of lung cancer.

Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive tumour with dismal prognosis arising in the pleura and associated with asbestos exposure. Its incidence is on the rise worldwide. In selected patients with early-stage MPM, a maximal surgical cytoreduction in combination with additional antitumour treatment may be considered in selected patients assessed by a multidisciplinary tumor board. In patients with unresectable or advanced MPM, chemotherapy with platinum plus pemetrexed is the standard of care. Currently, no standard salvage therapy has been approved yet, but second-line chemotherapy with vinorelbine or gemcitabine is commonly used. Novel therapeutic approaches based on dual immunotherapy or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy demonstrated promising survival benefit and will probably be incorporated in the future.

Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas (PCBCLs) are B-cell lymphomas that can occur in the skin without evidence of extracutaneous involvement. The 2005 WHO/EORTC classification of cutaneous lymphomas and its 2018 update have distinguished three main categories based on clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and genetic characteristics: primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL), primary cutaneous follicle centre lymphoma (PCFCL), and primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL-LT). PCMZL and PCFCL are clinically indolent, while PCDLBCL-LT is an aggressive lymphoma. Due to its low incidence and lack of prospective studies, it is difficult to establish a standard treatment for each subgroup. The objective of our study was to describe the clinical and pathological characteristics of 103 patients with cutaneous B-cell lymphoma from 12 centres belonging to the Spanish Lymphoma Oncology Group. The median age was 53 years (40–65). According to skin extension, 62% had single-site lymphoma, 17% had regional lymphoma, and 20% had multifocal lymphoma. Histology: 66% had PCMZL, 26% had PCFCL, and 8% had PCDLBCL-LT. Twenty-three percent of the patients were treated exclusively with surgery, 26% with radiotherapy only, 21% with surgery plus radiotherapy, 10% with polychemotherapy, and 5% with rituximab monotherapy. Overall, 96% of patients achieved a complete response, and 44% subsequently relapsed, most of them relapsing either locally or regionally. The 10-year OS was 94.5% for the entire cohort, 98% for the PCMZL cohort, 95% for the PCFCL cohort, and 85.7% for the PCDLBCL-LT cohort. Our data are comparable to those of other published series, except for the high frequency of PCMZL. The expected heterogeneity in therapeutic management has been observed.

E21518 Background: Several platforms for non-invasive EGFR testing are currently used in the clinical setting, with sensitivities ranging from 30 to 100%. Comparison studies in prospective cohorts remain limited and reports evaluating mutant allelic fractions (MAFs) are particularly scarce. The RING observational trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03363139) was designed to comprehensively analyze the concordance between methodologies for EGFR mutation detection in blood. Methods: Seventy-two EGFR mutant NSCLC patients were enrolled in the trial. Plasma samples were prospectively collected at progression to first line Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor and tested for EGFR mutations by 7 methodologies; cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2, Therascreen EGFR Plasma RGQ PCR Kit, QuantStudio 3D Digital PCR System, a 5-nuclease real-time PCR assay in presence of PNA, OncoBEAM EGFR and NGS with two different gene panels, Ion Torrent Oncomine and GeneRead QIAact Lung DNA UMI Cancer Panel. Results: The agreement between all methodologies for was almost perfect for the detection of deletions in exon 19 (K = 0.86; 95%CI: 0.76-0.96) and substantial for exon 21 point mutations (K = 0.76; 95%CI: 0.63-0.89). Regarding the p.T790M resistance mutation, concordance was lower but still substantial (K = 0.68; 95%CI: 0.57-0.79). If only NGS-based technologies were considered, the agreement was almost perfect for sensitizing mutations and substantial for the resistance mutation (K = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.68-1.00, K = 0.86; 95%CI: 0.69-1.00 and K = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.60-0.95 for exon 19, exon 21 and p.T790M, respectively). Most discordant samples between methodologies had mutant allele fractions (MAFs) ≤0.5%. Sensitizing mutations were always present at higher MAFs than concomitant p.T790M, explaining the lower concordance observed for this variant. MAFs obtained by different methodologies showed an excellent reproducibility (intraclass correlation coeficients 0.85-0.97). Similarly, Passing–Bablok regression analysis showed a high correlation between methodologies when assessing MAFs. Conclusions: Our results support the use of liquid biopsies for non-invasive EGFR testing in the clinical setting and highlight the need to systematically report MAFs.