Back to Authors

Awosika, Nichola

Mayo Clinic

Hammersmith Hospital

Citations 2

Integrated Molecular and Clinical Characterization of Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma
Chiang, Anne C. , Nassar, Amin H. , Kim, Chul , Farhat, Elias Bou , Matteson, Kelsey, Lau, Shun‐Fat , Gallegos, Jesús Antonio Ocejo , Ardeshir‐Larijani, Fatemeh , Leal, Ticiana, Alam, Sumaye, Gray, Jhanelle E. , Hicks, J. Kevin , Kaldas, David , Baena, Javier, Berjaga, María Zurera, Grohé, Christian , Leuders, Heike, Mingo, Emanuele Claudio , Pancirer, Danny, Cheung, Justin M., Lin, Jessica, Watson, Alexander, Camidge, D. Ross , Parikh, Kaushal , Aggarwal, Vanya , Ahmed, Murtaza, Zhang, Jun , Nagasaka, Misako , Awosika, Nichola, Alhamad, Khaled, Zaman, Unaiza, Gupta, Divya , Lau, Chelsea, Khan, Hina, Liauw, Justin , Brown, Tyiesha , Mosteiro, Miguel , Lopes, Gilberto , Patrick, C. , Young, Lauren K. , Aljumaily, Raid, Mirza, Haris , TAKEBE, Y., Baena, Javier , Nassar, Amin H. , Ocejo Gallegos, Jesus Antonio , Bou Farhat, Elias , Espinar, Javier Baena , Adeyelu, Tolulope Tosin , Abushukair, Hassan , Rakaee, Mehrdad , Takabe, Yamato J. , Ramalingam, Suresh S. , Alam, Sumaiya, Nana, Frank Aboubakar , Citarella, Fabrizio , Cortellini, Alessio , Das, Millie , Ellis-Caleo, Timothy John , Linehan, William Marston , Sridhar, Arthi , Crowley, Fionnuala , Marron, Thomas , Sankar, K. Nathan , Kawtharany, Hassan , Owen, Dwight H , Li, Mingjia , Pinato, David J. , Puri, Sonam , Velázquez, Ana I. , Moliner, Laura , Rocha, Pedro , Evans, Mark G. , Vanderwalde, Ari M. , Elliott, Andrew , Nieva, Jorgé , Patrick, C. , Borghaei, Hossein , Lee, Matthew , Kwiatkowski, David J. , Herbst, Roy S. , Flavell, Richard A. , Naqash, Abdul Rafeh

No container title available | May 16, 2025 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-6639680/v1 Get It

Abstract Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung tumor marked by significant molecular heterogeneity. In a study of 590 patients across two independent cohorts, we observed comparable overall survival across treatment regimens (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy) without unexpected adverse events. Genomic analysis identified distinct NSCLC-like (KEAP1, KRAS, STK11 mutations) and SCLC-like (RB1, TP53 mutations) LCNEC subtypes, with 80% aligning with SCLC transcriptional profiles. Serial sampling revealed stable mutational but shifting transcriptomic landscapes over time. NSCLC-like LCNECs showed elevated FGL-1 (a LAG-3 ligand) and SPINK1 expression, while SCLC-like subtypes expressed higher levels of DLL3. Immunofluorescence confirmed FGL-1 in NSCLC-like LCNECs, and H&E slide analyses indicated fewer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in LCNECs versus other lung cancers. These findings highlight LCNEC’s distinct immunogenomic profile, supporting future investigations into LAG-3, SPINK1, and DLL3-targeted therapies.
Exploring systemic treatment approaches for advanced pure large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC): A multicenter retrospective analysis.
Matteson, Kelsey, Ardeshir, Fatemeh, Gray, Jhanelle E. , Espinar, Javier Baena , Grohé, Christian , Pancirer, Danny, Cheung, Justin Matthew, Watson, Alexander, Kaldas, David , Kim, Chul , Awosika, Nichola, Chiang, Anne C. , Nassar, Amin H. , Kwiatkowski, David J. , Nana, Frank Aboubakar , Citarella, Fabrizio , Sridhar, Arthi , Crowley, Fionnuala , Sankar, K. Nathan , Naqash, Abdul Rafeh

Journal of Clinical Oncology | June 28, 2024 | Volume: 42 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 8106-8106

10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.8106 Get It

8106 Background: Due to lack of prospective data, the optimal first line treatment approach for patients (pts) with pure LCNEC histology remains uncertain. Methods: Across 17 centers, we conducted a retrospective analysis of metastatic pure LCNEC (diagnosed at local institutions) who received 1st-line systemic therapy between 2015-2023. Pts were either treated with chemotherapy (chemo), immunotherapy (IO), or a combination (chemoIO). Clinical outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (trAE) as defined using CTCAE 5.0. Survival analysis by genomic alteration status ( TP53, RB1, STK11, KEAP1, KRAS) and PD-L1 status were performed. Results: We identified 161 pts with median age of 67 years (IQR: 58-83) at 1st line systemic therapy; 54% (n = 87) were males. Median follow-up was 55 months (mo), 62 mo, and 29 mo for the chemo, IO, and chemoIO groups, respectively. 79% (n = 127) were former or current smokers. 1st-line treatments were chemo (n = 94), IO (n = 11), or chemoIO (n = 56). Of 85 pts with PD-L1 status, 58 (68%) were 0% and 27 (32%) were ≥1%. The most common chemo regimen was platinum-etoposide (n = 72, 78%). ChemoIO regimens included carboplatin/etoposide/atezolizumab (n = 23, 43%) and carboplatin/pemetrexed/pembrolizumab (n = 17, 31%). In the IO group, 1 patient received dual IO. Lung (n = 74, 46%) and liver (n = 71, 41%) were the most common sites of metastasisThere was no significant difference in PFS across the groups (median PFS [mPFS] chemoIO: 5.7 mo, 95% CI: 5.0-6.3, chemo: 5.1 mo, 95% CI: 3.1-5.9; IO: 3.6 mo, 95% CI: 1.7-6.5) on multivariable analysis adjusting for ECOG and “M” stage (p = 0.2 and 0.24 for chemoIO-chemo and chemoIO-IO comparisons, respectively). There was no difference in OS (mOS chemo: 11 mo, 95% CI: 7.6-17.4; IO: 13.6 mo, 95% CI: 5.9-not reached; chemoIO: 12.2 mo, 95% CI: 7.4-20.6, p = 0.5 and 0.8 for chemoIO-chemo and chemoIO-IO comparisons, respectively). ORR was 35.2% (31/88) in chemo, 25% (2/8) in IO, and 35.7% (20/56) in chemoIO ( p= 0.46). There were no significant differences in PFS and OS outcomes by treatment group when divided by genetic profile (n = 79, methods), or by PD-L1 status (0% vs ≥1%). Any grade trAE occurred in 48 (51%), 5 (45%), and 28 (50%) pts treated with chemo, IO, and chemoIO, respectively. Grade ≥3 toxicity profiles are shown (table). Conclusions: For 1st-line treatment of LCNEC, similar PFS, OS, and ORR were seen for chemo, IO, and chemoIO. This questions the added benefit of chemoIO compared to chemo alone, and warrants future clinical trials to discern the optimal 1st line treatment. [Table: see text]