Aredo, Jacqueline V.

AbstractBackgroundRecent therapeutic advances and screening technologies have improved survival among patients with lung cancer, who are now at high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model (called SPLC‐RAT) was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT was evaluated in a hospital‐based cohort of lung cancer survivors.MethodsThe authors analyzed data from 8448 ever‐smoking patients diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1997–2006 at Mayo Clinic, with each patient followed for SPLC through 2018. The predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT and further explored the potential of improving SPLC detection through risk model‐based surveillance using SPLC‐RAT versus existing clinical surveillance guidelines.ResultsOf 8448 IPLC patients, 483 (5.7%) developed SPLC over 26,470 person‐years. The application of SPLC‐RAT showed high discrimination area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81). When the cohort was stratified by a 10‐year risk threshold of ≥5.6% (i.e., 80th percentile from the SPLC‐RAT development cohort), the observed SPLC incidence was significantly elevated in the high‐risk versus low‐risk subgroup (13.1% vs. 1.1%, p < 1 × 10–6). The risk‐based surveillance through SPLC‐RAT (≥5.6% threshold) outperformed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines with higher sensitivity (86.4% vs. 79.4%) and specificity (38.9% vs. 30.4%) and required 20% fewer computed tomography follow‐ups needed to detect one SPLC (162 vs. 202).ConclusionIn a large, hospital‐based cohort, the authors validated the predictive performance of SPLC‐RAT in identifying high‐risk survivors of SPLC and showed its potential to improve SPLC detection through risk‐based surveillance.Plain Language Summary Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, no evidence‐based guidelines for SPLC surveillance are available for lung cancer survivors. Recently, an SPLC risk‐prediction model was developed and validated using data from population‐based epidemiological cohorts and clinical trials, but real‐world validation has been lacking. Using a large, real‐world cohort of lung cancer survivors, we showed the high predictive accuracy and risk‐stratification ability of the SPLC risk‐prediction model. Furthermore, we demonstrated the potential to enhance efficiency in detecting SPLC using risk model‐based surveillance strategies compared to the existing consensus‐based clinical guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

8567 Background: Adjuvant osimertinib (osi) improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients (pts) with resected, early-stage, EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) NSCLC, yet the benefit of osi after CRT in pts with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC is unknown. Post-hoc analysis of the PACIFIC trial showed a lack of survival benefit with consolidation durva versus placebo in pts with EGFRmut NSCLC. Comparisons between consolidation durva and EGFR TKIs in unresectable EGFRmut NSCLC following CRT are lacking. Methods: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of pts with stage III unresectable EGFRmut NSCLC (exon19 deletion, exon21 L858R), who received EGFR TKI or durva after ≥ 2 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy plus definitive radiation therapy between 2015-2022. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, smoking history, PD-L1 status, and outcomes on DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety were collected. Multivariable (MVA) cox regression analysis was used for statistical analysis. Treatment-related adverse events (trAE) were defined using CTCAE 5.0. Results: Seventeen pts from 12 institutions received an EGFR TKI (osi, n=15; erlotinib, n=2), and 13 pts received consolidation durva. Median follow-up was 23 months. Median age of all pts was 61 years (IQR:52-72) and 76.7% were female. Most pts in both groups had never-smoked and had adenocarcinoma. All pts received ≥ 60 Gy of radiation with concurrent chemotherapy. PD-L1 expression was ≥ 50% in 1/10 (10%) pts treated with durva vs 6/13 (46.2%) treated with TKI, p=0.09. Median duration on treatment for EGFR TKI and durva was 12.2 months and 4.8 months, respectively. Pts treated with EGFR TKI had significantly longer 24-month DFS versus pts treated with durva after adjusting for stage (3A vs 3B vs 3C) (Table). Any grade tRAE occurred in 58.8% (10/17) of pts treated with EGFR TKI vs 38.5% (5/13) with durva. Grade > 3 tRAE occurred in 15.4% (1 pneumonitis and 1 AST/ALT elevation) of pts treated with durva but in none of pts treated with EGFR TKI. Three pts within each arm came off treatment due to toxicity (EGFR TKI: 1 pneumonitis and 2 dermatitis; durva: 1 of each pneumonitis, Type 1 diabetes, AST/ALT elevation). Conclusions: EGFR TKI therapy after definitive CRT was associated with significantly longer DFS compared to durva in this retrospective study of pts with stage III unresectable EGFRmut NSCLC, without unanticipated safety signals. Follow-up is ongoing and OS outcomes will be evaluated subsequently. Further investigation is warranted to define the optimal therapy for locally advanced EGFRmut NSCLC. [Table: see text]