Eduardo Castañón

Background: MSI-H/dMMR is considered the first predictive marker of efficacy for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, around 39% of cases are refractory and additional biomarkers are needed. We explored the prognostic value of pretreatment LIPI in MSI-H/dMMR patients treated with ICIs, including identification of fast-progressors. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study of patients with metastatic MSI-H/dMMR tumors treated with ICIs between April 2014 and May 2019 was performed. LIPI was calculated based on dNLR > 3 and LDH > upper limit of normal. LIPI groups were good (zero factors), intermediate (one factor) and poor (two factors). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), including the fast-progressor rate (OS < 3 months). Results: A total of 151 patients were analyzed, mainly female (59%), with median age 64 years, performance status (PS) 0 (42%), and sporadic dMMR status (68%). ICIs were administered as first or second-line for 59%. The most frequent tumor types were gastrointestinal (66%) and gynecologic (22%). LIPI groups were good (47%), intermediate (43%), and poor (10%). The median follow-up was 32 months. One-year OS rates were 81.0%, 67.1%, and 21.4% for good, intermediate, and poor-risk groups (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for tumor site, metastatic sites and PS, LIPI remained independently associated with OS (HR, poor-LIPI: 3.50, 95%CI: 1.46–8.40, p = 0.02. Overall, the fast-progressor rate was 16.0%, and 35.7% with poor-LIPI vs. 7.5% in the good-LIPI group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: LIPI identifies dMMR patients who do not benefit from ICI treatment, particularly fast-progressors. LIPI should be included as a stratification factor for future trials.

Immunotherapy has emerged in recent years and has revolutionized the treatment of cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, including anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents, are the first of this new generation of treatments. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents target immune cells by blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway. This blockade leads to enhancement of the immune system and therefore restores the tumour-induced immune deficiency selectively in the tumour microenvironment. However, this shift in the balance of the immune system can also produce adverse effects that involve multiple organs. The pattern of toxicity is different from traditional chemotherapy agents or targeted therapy, and there is still little experience in recognizing and managing it. Thus, toxicity constitutes a real clinical management challenge and any new alteration should be suspected of being treatment-related. The most common toxicities occur in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, lungs, and endocrine, musculoskeletal, renal, nervous, haematologic, cardiovascular and ocular systems. Immune-mediated toxic effects are usually manageable, but toxicities may sometimes lead to treatment withdrawal, and even fulminant and fatal events can occur. Oncologists need to collaborate with internists, clinical immunologists and other specialists to understand, manage and prevent toxicity derived from immunotherapy. This review focuses on the mechanisms of toxicity of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents, and its diagnosis and management.

Liver metastases appear in 20–30% of patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and represent a poor prognosis feature of NSCLC and a possibly more treatment-resistant condition. Potential clinical outcome differences in NSCLC patients with liver metastases harboring molecular alterations in EGFR, KRAS and EML4-ALK genes are still to be determined. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of liver metastasis in a single population and look for potential correlations between EGFR mutations, liver infiltration and clinical outcomes. A total of 236 consecutive stage IV NSCLC patients treated at the Clínica Universidad de Navarra were analyzed. At onset, liver metastases were present in 16.9% of patients conferring them a shorter overall survival (OS) compared to those with different metastatic locations excluding liver infiltration (10 vs. 21 months; p = 0.001). Patients with EGFR wild-type tumors receiving standard chemotherapy and showing no liver involvement presented a superior median OS compared to those with liver metastases (23 vs. 13 months; p = 0.001). Conversely, patients with EGFR-mutated tumors treated with EGFR tyrosin-kinase inhibitors (TKI’s) presented no significant differences in OS regardless of liver involvement (median OS not reached vs. 25 months; p = 0.81). Overall, liver metastases at onset negatively impact OS of NSCLC patients. EGFR TKIs however, may reverse the effects of an initial negative prognosis of liver metastasis in first-line treatment of EGFR mutated NSCLC patients.

In the last decade, the tyrosine kinase receptor cMET, together with its ligand hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), has become a target in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Signalization via cMET stimulates several oncological processes amongst which are cell motility, invasion and metastasis. It also confers resistance against several currently used targeted therapies, e.g., epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. In this review, we will discuss the basic structure of cMET and the most important signaling pathways. We will also look into aberrations in the signaling and the effects thereof in cancer growth, with the focus on NSCLC. Finally, we will discuss the role of cMET as resistance mechanism.

We studied whether thymidylate synthase (TS) genotype has an independent prognostic/predictive impact on a European population of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving pemetrexed.

356 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy is an increasingly used approach in LAPC patients (pts) but the optimal sequence remains to be defined. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of induction chemotherapy (ICT) with pharmacokinetic (PK) monitoring, chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and surgery. Methods: Borderline resectable and unresectable LAPC pts with EUS stages T3-4/N+ were included. Pts were planned to receive 4 cycles of biweekly ICT with Oxalipatin (85mg/m²), Leucovorin (400mg/m²), Irinotecan (150mg/m²) and 5-FU (initial dose of 3200mg/m² in 46h and then tailored according to PK monitoring to reach an area under the curve (AUC) between 25-30 mg·h·L-1.) After ICT, pts with no progressive disease received CRT (50.4 Gy, daily concurrent Capecitabine and weekly Oxaliplatin). Surgery was planned 4 to 6 weeks after the completion of CRT. Pathological response was graded according to the CAP classification. Toxicity was recorded according to the NCI-CTCAE 4.0. Results: From November 2011 to February 2013, 13 LAPC treatment-naïve (M/F: 11/2) pts were enrolled (T4; 30.8%, N+; 61.5%, 8 borderline resectable, 5 unresectable due to celiac abutment (2 pts), SMA and celiac encasement (1 pt), unreconstructible SMV and portal occlusion (2 pts). Median age was 63. During ICT, 5- FU dose had to be increased from baseline in 30.7% pts. Grade 3-4 ICT-related toxicities were neutropenia (6 pts) and diarrhea (1 pt). During CRT, grade 3 toxicity included neutropenia (2 pts), thrombocytopenia (1 pt), diarrhea (1 pt), asthenia (1 pt) and mucositis (1 pt); three pts required hospital admission in hospital. Twelve pts completed the whole neoadjuvant program. Ten pts proceeded to surgery with an R0 resection rate of 76.9%. Pathological response was CAP 0 (no viable cells) and CAP 1 (small groups of cancer cells) in 20% and 50% of pts, respectively; ypT0 and ypN0 rates were 20 and 60%. After a median follow-up of 12 months, the 12-month actuarial median PFS and OS were 80% and 75%, respectively. Conclusions: This neoadjuvant strategy seems feasible and promising although a longer follow-up is required. 5-FU PK modulation may contribute to a better therapeutic index.

Background: Inhibitor of DNA binding 1 (Id1) and 3 (Id3) genes have been related with the inhibition of cell differentiation, cell growth promotion and tumor metastasis. Recently, Id1 has been identified as an independent prognostic factor in patients with lung adenocarcinoma, regardless of the stage. Furthermore, Id1 may confer resistance to treatment (both, radiotherapy and chemotherapy). Methods: We have studied, using monoclonal antibodies for immunohistochemistry, the Id1 and Id3 tumor epithelial expression in 17 patients with stage III-N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Results: Id1 expression is observed in 82.4% of the tumors, whereas Id3 expression is present in 41.2% of the samples. Interestingly, Id1 and Id3 expression are mutually correlated (R = 0.579, p = 0.015). In a subgroup analysis of patients with the most locally advanced disease (T4N2 stage), co-expression of Id1 and Id3 showed to be related with a worse overall survival (45 vs 6 months, p = 0.002). A trend towards significance for a worse progression free survival (30 vs 1 months, p = 0.219) and a lower response rate to the treatment (RR = 50% vs 87.5%, p = 0.07) were also observed. Conclusions: A correlation between Id1 and Id3 protein expression is observed. Id1 and Id3 co-expression seems associated with a poor clinical outcome in patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy.