Bauman, Jessica R.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that originates from the mesothelial surfaces of certain sites within the body. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common type and represents approximately 85% of mesotheliomas. The NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural provide recommendations for evaluation and treatment in patients with pleural mesothelioma. The NCCN Guidelines will continue to be updated annually based on available clinical evidence and panel consensus.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary disease management, surveillance, and subsequent treatment. The panel has updated the list of recommended targeted therapies based on recent FDA approvals and clinical data. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on treatment recommendations for advanced or metastatic NSCLC with actionable biomarkers.

The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines, with a focus on systemic therapy options for the treatment of patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC and the corresponding molecular testing considerations.

Thymomas and thymic carcinomas are rare mediastinal tumors that originate in the thymus. Patients with thymoma may experience symptoms associated with autoimmune paraneoplastic diseases (such as myasthenia gravis), which typically do not occur in patients with thymic carcinoma. The NCCN Guidelines for Thymomas and Thymic Carcinomas provide guidance for the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of patients with thymoma and thymic carcinoma. Involvement of a multidisciplinary team with experience treating thymomas and thymic carcinomas is highly recommended.

PURPOSE Continued improvement in outcomes is needed for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Methods Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (800 mg IV once every 2 weeks) plus cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 IV once every 2 weeks) versus avelumab alone once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. Cetuximab was given for 1 year in the avelumab + cetuximab arm. Crossover at progression to avelumab + cetuximab was allowed. Randomization was 1:1, stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. Patients had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, were anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody–naive, had no previous cetuximab in the advanced setting, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and could be HIV+ (CD4 >200, viral load <200). Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; null hypothesis: median = 12 months v alternative hypothesis: 21 months or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha .2, n = 57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rates (ORRs), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled; 57 patients were evaluable. The median age was 72 years, all were HIV–; 75.4% was PD-L1+, 84.2% had head/neck origin, 47.4% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab (median, 11.1 [7.6-not reached (NR)] v 3.0 months [2.7-13.6] hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.97], P = .018). Avelumab patients who crossed over (n = 9) to combination had a median PFS after crossover of 11.3 months (5.8-NR). The confirmed ORR was 27.6% with avelumab + cetuximab and 21.4% with avelumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48.3% and 21.5% of patients with avelumab + cetuximab (most common: rash [20.7%], infusion reaction [20.7%]) and avelumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab alone in patients with advanced cSCC. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with the combination of cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade.

6002 Background: There is a need for continued improvement in outcomes with systemic therapy for advanced cSCC. Pre-clinical data suggest immunologic synergy between IgG1 mAb therapy targeting EGFR and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Methods: Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (AV) (800 mg) plus cetuximab (C) (500 mg/m2) vs. AV alone every 2 weeks for up to 2 years (yrs). C was given for 1 yr in the AV+C arm. Crossover at progression to AV+C was allowed in the AV arm. Randomization was 1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 [+(>1%) vs. -] and HIV status (+ vs. -). Eligible patients (pts) had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb naive, no prior cetuximab in the advanced setting, ECOG PS 0-2, HIV+ if CD4 >200 and VL <200. Pts with CLL, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (Ho: Median=12 mo vs Ha: 21 mo or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha 0.2, n=57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), confirmed response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. After 31/37 events, an early unplanned analysis (along with sensitivity analyses) was performed because it became apparent that 37 events would not be reached. These results were submitted to the Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board, which recommended releasing the data. Data cutoff was 1/16/25. Results: 60 pts were enrolled between 2019-2023; 57 pts were evaluable. Median age was 72 yrs (41‒93), 96.5% were white, 91.2% male, all HIV-; 75.4% PD-L1+. 84.2% were head/neck origin, 47.1% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. AV+C significantly improved PFS compared to AV [median 11.1 months (mo) (7.6‒not reached (NR)) vs. 4.8 mo (2.8‒NR) hazard ratio (HR) 0.53 95% CI (0.26‒1.09), one-sided p=0.041]. The median OS of AV+C vs. AV was NR (25.2‒NR) vs. 35.8 mo (18.6‒NR) HR 0.77 (0.33‒1.78) p=0.267. ORR was 31.0% in the AV+C arm and 21.4% in the AV arm. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of any grade (G) occurred in 93% and 78.6%, respectively, and were G>3 in 48.3% and 21.5% of pts in the AV+C [most common G3 TRAEs were rash (20.7%) and infusion-related reaction (20.7%)] and AV arms, respectively. There were no G5 events. Outcomes after crossover and by PD-L1 status will be presented subsequently. Conclusions: Avelumab plus cetuximab significantly improved PFS vs. avelumab alone in advanced cSCC pts, without unexpected toxicity. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with combination cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology); U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . EMD Serono CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755. Clinical trial information: NCT03944941 .

1649 Background: Findings from our prior large-scale comparative effectiveness trial showed the equivalent effect of delivering early palliative care via video versus in-person on quality of life among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We now report on whether the two care delivery modalities were equivalent with respect to patient-reported communication with clinicians about their end-of-life (EOL) care preferences and hospice utilization. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC in a randomized trial of early palliative care across 22 US cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every 4 weeks from enrollment through the course of the disease, either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report surveys at baseline and weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48, including an item asking if they had discussed with their clinicians the care they would want to receive if dying (yes/no); patients’ final assessments prior to death or last follow up were analyzed. We reviewed patients’ health records to collect data on hospice referral and length of stay. To test the equivalence in these outcomes, we used a binomial generalized linear model with the identity link function (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±8% for patient-reported communication about EOL care) and linear regression (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±6 days for mean length of stay in hospice). P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Results: Of the 1250 enrolled participants, 888 (71.0%) completed at least one survey post baseline regarding whether they communicated with clinicians about EOL care preferences. Among those, 29.1% of the video group and 26.0% of the in-person group reported “yes,” indicating that they recalled such EOL care discussions (difference = 3.1%, 95% CI: -1.8%, 8.1%; p = 0.26 for equivalence). During the course of the trial, 733/1250 (58.6%) patients died, of whom 537/733 (73.3%) were referred to hospice. Mean lengths of hospice stay were 25.3 days for the video group versus 25.1 days for the in-person group (difference = 0.2, 95% CI: -7.0, 7.4; p = 0.46 for equivalence). When excluding outlying patients receiving hospice services > 180 days (n = 13), the mean lengths of hospice stay were 19.1 (video group) versus 19.7 (in-person group) days (difference = -0.6, 95% CI: -4.6, 3.3; p = 0.06 for equivalence). Conclusions: Although thresholds were not met to confirm equivalence statistically, the two modalities for delivering early palliative care demonstrate very similar outcomes with respect to patient-clinician communication about EOL care and hospice utilization. These findings provide further evidence of the utility of video visits for providing high quality palliative and EOL care. Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier ( NCT03375489 ) .

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P &amp;lt; .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary disease management, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. The panel has updated the list of recommended targeted therapies based on recent FDA approvals and clinical data. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on treatment recommendations for advanced or metastatic NSCLC with actionable molecular biomarkers.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer that originates from the mesothelial surfaces of the pleura and other sites, and is estimated to occur in approximately 3,500 people in the United States annually. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common type and represents approximately 85% of these cases. The NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pleural mesothelioma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Mesothelioma: Pleural, including revised guidance on disease classification and systemic therapy options.