PURPOSE: Immunotherapy targeting PD-L1 improves outcomes in patients with unresectable stage III non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and no progression after definitive, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Earlier administration of immunotherapy, simultaneously with cCRT, may improve outcomes further. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either durvalumab or placebo administered from the start of cCRT. Patients without progression after completing cCRT received consolidation durvalumab or placebo (per initial random assignment) until progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), the proportion of patients alive at 24 months (OS24), and safety. RESULTS: In total, 328 patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 219) or placebo (n = 109). There was no statistically significant difference with durvalumab versus placebo in PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.12]; P = .247) or OS (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.39]; P = .823); OS24 was 58.4% versus 59.5%, respectively. Confirmed ORR was 60.7% with durvalumab versus 60.6% with placebo (difference, 0.2% [95% CI, −15.2 to 16.3%]; P = .976). With durvalumab versus placebo, respectively, maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 53.4% versus 59.3% of patients, pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis (group term) in 28.8% (grade ≥3: 4.6%) versus 28.7% (grade ≥3: 5.6%), AEs leading to discontinuation of durvalumab or placebo in 25.6% versus 12.0%, and fatal AEs in 13.7% versus 10.2%. CONCLUSION: Among patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, durvalumab administered from the start of cCRT failed to demonstrate additional benefit compared with cCRT plus placebo. Consolidation durvalumab following definitive cCRT remains the standard of care in this setting.

Our objective was to determine whether oral etoposide and cisplatin combination (EoP) is superior to paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients pretreated with anthracyclines. From December 1997 to August 2003, 201 patients were randomised, 100 to EoP and 101 to paclitaxel arms. Four patients in each arm were ineligible. The doses of etoposide and cisplatin were 50 mg p.o. twice a day for 7 days and 70 mg m(-2) intravenously (i.v.) on day 1, respectively, and it was 175 mg m(-2) on day 1 for paclitaxel. Both treatments were repeated every 3 weeks. A median of four cycles of study treatment was given in both arms. The response rate obtained in the EoP arm was significantly higher (36.3 vs 22.2%; P=0.038). Median response duration was longer for the EoP arm (7 vs 4 months) (P=0.132). Also, time to progression was significantly in favour of the EoP arm (5.5 vs 3.9 months; P=0.003). Median overall survival was again significantly longer in the EoP arm (14 vs 9.5 months; P=0.039). Toxicity profile of both groups was similar. Two patients in each arm were lost due to febrile neutropenia. The observed activity and acceptable toxicity of EoP endorses the employment of this combination in the treatment of ABC following anthracyclines.

Background: Low serum sodium affects cancer prognosis, but its impact on immunotherapy is unclear. Objective: Assessing the association of pre- and post-ICI treatment sodium levels with survival. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients receiving ICI in January 2012-December 2023, collecting serum sodium levels at treatment initiation and 4 weeks post-ICI, with overall survival (OS) as the primary outcome. Results: Low sodium was observed in 125 and 119 patients pre-and post-treatment respectively. Pre-ICI and post-ICI low sodium correlated with decreased OS [10.6 vs. 22.9 months (p = 0.001) and 11.6 vs. 27.2 months (p = 0.009)]. Multivariate analysis identified pre-ICI low sodium [HR: 1.685; 95% CI: 1.050-2.705; p = 0.031] as an independent risk factor for worse OS. Conclusion: Low baseline serum sodium was an independent risk factor for poor OS in patients treated with ICIs.

Crizotinib is a multikinase inhibitor, effective in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epidermal transition (MET) alterations. Although small prospective studies showed efficacy and safety of crizotinib in NSCLC with MET alterations, there is limited real-life data. Aim of this study is to investigate real-life efficacy and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring MET alterations. This was a retrospective, multicenter (17 centers) study of Turkish Oncology Group. Patients’ demographic, histological data, treatment, response rates, survival outcomes, and toxicity data were collected. Outcomes were presented for the study population and compared between MET alteration types. Total of 62 patients were included with a median age of 58.5 (range, 26–78). Major histological type was adenocarcinoma, and 3 patients (4.8%) had sarcomatoid component. The most common MET analyzing method was next generation sequencing (90.3%). MET amplification and mutation frequencies were 53.2% (n = 33) and 46.8% (n = 29), respectively. Overall response rate and disease control rate were 56.5% and 74.2% in whole study population, respectively. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8–10.5), and median overall survival (OS) was 18.7 months (95% CI: 13.7–23.7), regardless of treatment line. Median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.6–6.4) for patients with MET amplification, whereas 14.3 months (95% CI: 6.7–21.7) for patients with MET mutation (P = .217). Median PFS was significantly longer in patients who have never smoked (P = .040), have good performance score (P < .001), and responded to the treatment (P < .001). OS was significantly longer in patients with MET mutation (25.6 months, 95% CI: 15.9–35.3) compared to the patients with MET amplification (11.0 months; 95% CI: 5.2–16.8) (P = .049). In never-smokers, median OS was longer than smoker patients (25.6 months [95% CI: 11.8–39.3] vs 16.5 months [95% CI: 9.3–23.6]; P = .049). The most common adverse effects were fatigue (50%), peripheral edema (21%), nausea (29%) and diarrhea (19.4%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse effects were observed in 6.5% of the patients. This real-life data confirms efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of advanced NSCLC harboring MET alteration.