PURPOSE: Durvalumab significantly improves overall survival for patients with unresectable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer and no progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Building upon that standard of care, COAST is a phase II study of durvalumab alone or combined with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab as consolidation therapy in this setting. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no progression after cCRT were randomly assigned 1:1:1, ≤ 42 days post-cCRT, to durvalumab alone or combined with oleclumab or monalizumab for up to 12 months, stratified by histology. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2020, 189 patients were randomly assigned. At this interim analysis (data cutoff, May 17, 2021), median follow-up was 11.5 months (range, 0.4-23.4 months; all patients). Confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7) versus durvalumab (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6 to 29.2). Progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged with both combinations versus durvalumab (plus oleclumab: hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.75; and plus monalizumab: hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.72), with higher 12-month PFS rates (plus oleclumab: 62.6% [95% CI, 48.1 to 74.2] and plus monalizumab: 72.7% [95% CI, 58.8 to 82.6] v durvalumab alone: 33.9% [95% CI, 21.2 to 47.1]). All-cause grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 40.7%, 27.9%, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both combinations increased ORR and prolonged PFS versus durvalumab alone. Safety was similar across arms with no new or significant safety signals identified with either combination. These data support their further evaluation in a phase III trial.

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.

Thymic epithelial tumours (TET) represent a heterogeneous group of rare malignancies that include thymomas and thymic carcinoma. Treatment of TET is based on the resectability of the tumour. If this is considered achievable upfront, surgical resection is the cornerstone of treatment. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard regimen for advanced TET. Due to the rarity of this disease, treatment decisions should be discussed in specific multidisciplinary tumour boards, and there are few prospective clinical studies with new strategies. However, several pathways involved in TET have been explored as potential targets for new therapies in previously treated patients, such as multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors with antiangiogenic properties and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). One third of patient with thymoma present an autoimmune disorders, increasing the risk of immune-related adverse events and autoimmune flares under ICIs. In these guidelines, we summarize the current evidence for the therapeutic approach in patients with TET and define levels of evidence for these decisions.

Introduction: There are currently three first-line immunotherapy options used as monotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥50%). This manuscript aims to evaluate the available data on atezolizumab (AT), cemiplimab (CEMI), and pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and to study the results obtained during pivotal trials, especially regarding patient subgroups. Methods: Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. Eight Spanish experts in lung cancer (the scientific committee of the project) analyzed the use of immunotherapy monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression. The expert scientific committee formulated several statements based on a scientific review and their own clinical experience. Subsequently, 17 additional Spanish lung cancer experts were selected to appraise the committee’s statements through two Delphi rounds. They completed a Delphi round via an online platform and voted according to a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). The statements were approved if ≥70% of experts voted 7 or more. Results: A total of 20 statements were proposed covering the following areas: (1) general characteristics of pivotal clinical trials; (2) overall main outcomes of pivotal clinical trials; and (3) subgroup analysis. All statements reached consensus in the first round. Conclusions: AT, CEMI, and PEMBRO as monotherapy can be considered the standard of care in patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression (≥50%). Moreover, some differences noted among the drugs analyzed in this document might facilitate treatment decision-making, especially in clinically relevant patient subgroups, when using PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The high level of agreement reached among experts supports the proposed statements.