Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction. We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation. We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2). : ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab has been shown to be effective in resectable non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the NADIM trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081689 ). The 3-year overall survival (OS) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis have not been reported. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial in which patients with stage IIIA NSCLC, who were deemed to be surgically resectable, were treated with neoadjuvant paclitaxel (200 mg/m² once a day) and carboplatin (area under curve 6) plus nivolumab (360 mg) once on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, for three cycles, followed by adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy for 1 year (240 mg once every 2 weeks for 4 months, followed by 480 mg once every 4 weeks for 8 months). The 3-year OS and ctDNA analysis were secondary objectives of the trial. RESULTS: OS at 36 months was 81.9% (95% CI, 66.8 to 90.6) in the intention-to-treat population, rising to 91.0% (95% CI, 74.2 to 97.0) in the per-protocol population. Neither tumor mutation burden nor programmed cell death ligand-1 staining was predictive of survival. Conversely, low pretreatment levels of ctDNA were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival and OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.63, and HR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.39, respectively). Clinical responses according to RECIST v1.1 criteria did not predict survival outcomes. However, undetectable ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment were significantly associated with progression-free survival and OS (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.93, and HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.55, respectively). The C-index to predict OS for ctDNA levels after neoadjuvant treatment (0.82) was superior to that of RECIST criteria (0.72). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab in resectable NSCLC is supported by 3-year OS. ctDNA levels were significantly associated with OS and outperformed radiologic assessments in the prediction of survival.

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.

The increasing incidence and poor outcome associated with MPM requires finding effective treatment for this disease. PD1/PD-L1 pathway plays a central role in tumor immune evasion and appears to be predictive and prognostic marker. PD-L1 is expressed in many different human cancers but its role in MPM has yet to be established. The aim of this study is to evaluate the expression of PD-L1 in MPM. 119 MPM patients (p) from two institutions between November 2002 and February 2014 were reviewed. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was stained with anti-PD-L1 (clone E1L3N). Cases showing more than 1% of tumor cells expression of PD-L1 were considered positive. PD-L1 was analyzed in 77 p with tumor tissue available and was positive in 20.7% p (14 samples in membrane, 16 in cytoplasm and 4 in immune infiltrate). PD-L1 intensity was weak in 56.2%, moderate in 25% and strong in 18.7% p. There was a significant relationship between PD-L1 expression and histology (PD-L1 expression 37.5% in no-epithelioid tumor and 13.2% in epithelioid; p=0.033). The median survival in p PD-L1 positive was 4.79 vs 16.3 months in p PD-L1 negative (p=0.012). We have shown PD-L1 is expressed in 20% of patients, associated with no epithelioid histology and poor prognostic in MPM. Our results suggest PD-L1 warrants further exploration in selecting p for immunotherapy.

A variety of single-cell RNA preparation procedures have been described. So far, protocols require fresh material, which hinders complex study designs. We describe a sample preservation method that maintains transcripts in viable single cells, allowing one to disconnect time and place of sampling from subsequent processing steps. We sequence single-cell transcriptomes from >1000 fresh and cryopreserved cells using 3'-end and full-length RNA preparation methods. Our results confirm that the conservation process did not alter transcriptional profiles. This substantially broadens the scope of applications in single-cell transcriptomics and could lead to a paradigm shift in future study designs.