Gray, Jhanelle E.

TPS8113 Background: There are currently three approved approaches for patients with resectable NSCLC including neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and perioperative treatment with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy. All regimens were approved after showing event-free survival (EFS) or disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Each approach has its benefits and risks. Starting immunotherapy prior to surgery may improve treatment compliance and efficacy of immunotherapy. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy may result in missing an opportunity for curative surgery and increase the complexity of tumor resection. PROSPECT-LUNG (NCT06632327) is a randomized study evaluating whether starting chemoimmunotherapy before or after surgery leads to better outcomes. Methods: This is a randomized phase 3 trial in which patients will be randomized 1:1 to surgery followed by chemoimmunotherapy (adjuvant arm) or neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy (perioperative arm). Patients with histologic or cytologic confirmation of surgically resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC (per AJCC 9th edition) or stage IIA to IIIB per AJCC 8 th edition up to single ipsilateral mediastinal station (N2a), ECOG PS ≤ 2 (or Karnofsky ≥ 60%), no prior treatment for NSCLC and no previous malignancy within 3 years are eligible. The dual primary endpoints are real-world event free survival (rwEFS) defined as date from randomization to date of the first of the following events: failure to undergo resection for any reason, progression prior to surgery that precludes resection, recurrence or progression at any time after surgery or death from any cause, and overall survival (OS) defined as time from randomization to death from any cause. The target accrual is 1,100 patients assuming one-sided type I error of 0.03 for OS endpoint and 0.02 for rwEFS endpoint. This sample size will enable the detection of a 3-year rwEFS improvement from 55% in the adjuvant therapy arm to 64% in the perioperative arm with an 84% power. This sample size would detect an HR of 0.73 (improvement in median OS from 8.1 to 11 years in favor of the perioperative arm, 5-year OS from 65% in the adjuvant arm to 73% in the perioperative arm, assuming exponential survival) with 83.6% power. The study has a pragmatic design with minimal data collection, reporting of adverse events that lead to discontinuation of therapy, hospitalization or death only. It allows providers to choose therapy per standard of care (FDA approved or on NCCN), includes patients with ECOG performance status 2, permits use of local laboratory testing and imaging studies and determination of recurrence/progression will be done by local treating physicians with no use of RECIST. Clinical trial information: NCT06632327 .

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.

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]

e21016 Background: BRAF mutations are grouped (class I, II or III) according to kinase activity, dependence on RAS, and dimerization. BRAF class I mutations are targeted with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The management of class II/III mutations has not been fully elucidated. We aimed to further characterize BRAF-mutant NSCLC. Methods: Moffitt patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC were identified through retrospective review of a clinical molecular database and electronic health record from 1/1/2012 - 03/31/2020. Demographics, PD-L1 expression, responses to chemotherapy/immunotherapy, and overall survival were collected. The correlation between BRAF mutation classes and these variables was determined using a pairwise comparison of p-values and corrected for testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. For survival analysis, we used the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Results: 153 patients were included. Table summarizes the demographic data. 14 evaluable patients with class I mutations received anti-BRAF therapy. The DCR was 79% (11/14) and 83% when PD-L1 ≥1% (5/6). 36 response-evaluable patients received immunotherapy. The DCR was 79% (11/14) for patients with class I, 69% (9/13) for class II, and 78% (7/9) for class III mutations (p=0.89). The DCR was 73% in those with PD-L1 ≥1% (22/30) and 44% in those with PD-L1 <1% (7/16; p= 0.02). 43 response-evaluable patients received chemotherapy. The DCR was 86% (18/21) for patients with class I, 69% (9/13) for class II, and 78% (7/9) for class III mutations (p=0.49). The mOS was 26.2 months for all patients. The mOS was 31.2 months for class I, 15.6 months for class II, 28.8 months for class III, 34.8 months for AMP, and 24 months for VUS (p=0.6). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective study of patients with BRAF-mutant NSCLC. BRAFmutations were more common in patients with adenocarcinoma and those with a smoking history. PD-L1 levels ≥1% were seen more frequently in all BRAF-mutant patients. Class I mutations were significantly more common than other mutations and responded well to BRAF-targeted therapy, particularly when PD-L1 ≥1%. All BRAF-mutant classes responded similarly to immunotherapy and better responses were seen among those with PD-L1 ≥1%. Responses to chemotherapy were similar across all classes. Improved OS in class I-mutant disease was seen. These findings were not statistically significant. Additional research is needed to better characterize these patients to individualize management and improve outcomes.[Table: see text]

TPS9077 Background: ALCHEMIST (Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial) is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that offers biomarker analysis for high-risk resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to support randomized trials of novel adjuvant therapies within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). EA5142, a trial of adjuvant nivolumab for patients (pts) without EGFR / ALK alterations, has completed enrollment. Given the survival benefit seen with 1st-line chemo-immunotherapy (chemo-IO) for advanced NSCLC without EGFR / ALK alterations, there was compelling rationale for the launch of a trial offering concurrent immunotherapy with adjuvant chemo. Here we report updated enrollment to ALCHEMIST as of Jan 14, 2020. Methods: ALCHEMIST includes a screening trial (A151216, 5362 registered) that enrolls pts with completely resected clinical stage IB (≥4 cm)–IIIA (per AJCC 7) NSCLC. Tissue and blood are collected, biomarker testing includes EGFR sequencing, ALK FISH and PD-L1 IHC. 733 active sites are enrolling across the NCTN. Pts with EGFR mutations may enroll to adjuvant erlotinib vs observation (A081105, 352 randomized); those with ALK fusions may enroll to adjuvant crizotinib vs observation (E4512, 99 randomized). A trial offering adjuvant nivolumab vs observation regardless of PD-L1 status (EA5142, 935 randomized) recently completed enrollment. To support ongoing investigation of adjuvant immunotherapy, ALCHEMIST is adding A081801 (opens spring 2020). Pts will be randomized to one of 3 arms: chemo-IO with pembrolizumab during and after chemo vs sequential chemo followed by pembrolizumab vs chemo alone. Pts with pathological N2 nodes are eligible and can undergo postoperative radiotherapy after completing chemo. Pts are eligible if enrolled to A151216, negative for EGFR and ALK alterations, and with PD-L1 testing completed (required for stratification). Local testing for EGFR, ALK and PD-L1 will be accepted for enrollment; central testing will not delay randomization. Pts may not have received any therapy except surgery for the lung cancer and must be age >18, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, have no active autoimmune disease requiring systemic treatment within 2 years, must not be pregnant or nursing, have no active second malignancy within 3 years and meet standard organ function values. By building off the ongoing ALCHEMIST platform, we hope to facilitate rapid enrollment to A081801 across participating NCTN sites. Clinical trial information: NCT02194738.

3027 Background: Two rational strategies to interrogate the IGF-1R pathway were investigated in this parallel-arm phase I trial: 1) vertical inhibition with D and MK-2206 to potentiate PI3K pathway targeting, 2) horizontal crosstalk inhibition with D and MK-0752 to exert effects against cellular proliferation, angiogenesis and stem cell propagation. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors and no prior exposure to agents of the same targets were eligible. Dose escalation was based on a modified toxicity probability interval method (Ji et al, 2010). Arm A is comprised of fixed D dose of 10 mg/m2 IV weekly plus MK-2206 at escalating doses of 90-200 mg PO weekly. Arm B is comprised of fixed MK-0752 dose of 1800 mg PO weekly plus D at escalating doses of 7.5-10 mg/m2 IV weekly. Each cycle = 4 weeks in both arms. Primary objectives were to determine DLT and RP2D of these combinations. Results: 30 patients were enrolled in the dose escalation phase (18 in Arm A and 12 in Arm B) with: median age = 56 (range 36-74); M:F = 13:17; ECOG 0:1 = 12:18; primary diagnosis = colorectal (CRC) (9), NSCLC (3), others (17); prior metastatic regimens = 3 (range 1-4). In Arm A, 1/6 DLT was observed with MK-2206 at 135 mg (G3 serum sickness-like reaction); 2/3 DLTs with MK-2206 at 200 mg (G4 leukopenia/neutropenia; G3 rash). No other G4 or worse adverse events (AEs) were observed. RP2D of Arm A = D 10mg/m2 IV weekly and MK-2206 150 mg PO weekly. Other common AEs in Arm A included: fatigue, rash and nausea. In Arm B, 2/6 DLTs were observed with D at 10 mg/m2 (G3 rash; G3 nausea/vomiting). RP2D of Arm B = D 10mg/m2 IV weekly and MK-0752 at 1800 mg PO weekly based on Ji et al. Other common AEs in Arm B included: anorexia, nausea and fatigue. No PR was observed and SD > 4 months occurred in 4 pts (all in Arm A). PK analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: Targeted combinations of D with MK-2206 or with MK-0752 were both tolerable. Expansion cohorts based on biomarker selection are underway, specifically ovarian cancer with high IGF1 expression/low RAS score for Arm A; and KRAS wild-type CRC with high IGF1/low IGF2 expression for Arm B.

Findings suggest that more intensive efforts than audit and feedback will be required to improve the quality of psychosocial care, and that greater recognition of problems with emotional well-being may tax the ability of practices to link patients with appropriate services.

The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care has identified how multiple aspects of breast cancer care can be improved.