Christine M. Bestvina

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the association between patient-oncologist discussion of cancer treatment out-of-pocket (OOP) cost and medication adherence, a critical component of quality cancer care. METHODS: We surveyed insured adults receiving anticancer therapy. Patients were asked if they had discussed OOP cost with their oncologist. Medication nonadherence was defined as skipping doses or taking less medication than prescribed to make prescriptions last longer, or not filling prescriptions because of cost. Multivariable analysis assessed the association between nonadherence and cost discussions. RESULTS: Among 300 respondents (86% response), 16% (n = 49) reported high or overwhelming financial distress. Nineteen percent (n = 56) reported talking to their oncologist about cost. Twenty-seven percent (n = 77) reported medication nonadherence. To make a prescription last longer, 14% (n = 42) skipped medication doses, and 11% (n = 33) took less medication than prescribed; 22% (n = 66) did not fill a prescription because of cost. Five percent (n = 14) reported chemotherapy nonadherence. To make a prescription last longer, 1% (n = 3) skipped chemotherapy doses, and 2% (n = 5) took less chemotherapy; 3% (n = 10) did not fill a chemotherapy prescription because of cost. In adjusted analyses, cost discussion (odds ratio [OR] = 2.58; 95% CI, 1.14 to 5.85; P = .02), financial distress (OR = 1.64, 95% CI, 1.38 to 1.96; P < .001) and higher financial burden than expected (OR = 2.89; 95% CI, 1.41 to 5.89; P < .01) were associated with increased odds of nonadherence. CONCLUSION: Patient-oncologist cost communication and financial distress were associated with medication nonadherence, suggesting that cost discussions are important for patients forced to make cost-related behavior alterations. Future research should examine the timing, content, and quality of cost-discussions.

Molecular modifiers of KRASG12C inhibitor (KRASG12Ci) efficacy in advanced KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC are poorly defined. In a large unbiased clinicogenomic analysis of 424 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we identified and validated coalterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as major independent determinants of inferior clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy. Collectively, comutations in these three tumor suppressor genes segregated patients into distinct prognostic subgroups and captured ∼50% of those with early disease progression (progression-free survival ≤3 months) with KRASG12Ci. Pathway-level integration of less prevalent coalterations in functionally related genes nominated PI3K/AKT/MTOR pathway and additional baseline RAS gene alterations, including amplifications, as candidate drivers of inferior outcomes with KRASG12Ci, and revealed a possible association between defective DNA damage response/repair and improved KRASG12Ci efficacy. Our findings propose a framework for patient stratification and clinical outcome prediction in KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC that can inform rational selection and appropriate tailoring of emerging combination therapies. SIGNIFICANCE: In this work, we identify co-occurring genomic alterations in KEAP1, SMARCA4, and CDKN2A as independent determinants of poor clinical outcomes with KRASG12Ci monotherapy in advanced NSCLC, and we propose a framework for patient stratification and treatment personalization based on the comutational status of individual tumors. See related commentary by Heng et al., p. 1513. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1501.

Cancer patients are highly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infections due to frequent contacts with the healthcare system, immunocompromised state from cancer or its therapies, supportive medications such as steroids and most importantly their advanced age and comorbidities. Patients with lung cancer have consistently been reported to suffer from an increased risk of death compared with other cancers. This is possibly due to the combination of specific pathophysiological aspects, including underlying pulmonary compromise due to smoking history and the increased specific pressures on respiratory healthcare services caused by the related pandemic. Rationally and safely treating patients with lung cancer during the pandemic has become a continuous challenge over the last year. Deciding whether to offer, modify, postpone or even cancel treatments for this particular patient's population has become the crucial recurrent dilemma for lung cancer professionals. Chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted agents represent distinct risks factors in the context of COVID-19 that should be balanced with the short-term and long-term consequences of delaying cancer care. Despite the rapid and persistent trend of the pandemic, declared by WHO on March 11, 2020, and still ongoing at the time of writing (January 2021), various efforts were made by oncologists worldwide to understand the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer. Adapted recommendations of our evidence-based practice guidelines have been developed for all stakeholders. Different small and large-scale registries, such as the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) and Thoracic Cancers International COVID-19 Collaboration quickly collected data, supporting cancer care decisions under the challenging circumstance created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Several recommendations were developed as guidance for prioritizing the various aspects of lung cancer care in order to mitigate the adverse effects of the COVID-19 healthcare crisis, potentially reducing the morbidity and mortality of our patients from COVID-19 and from cancer. These recommendations helped inform decisions about treatment of established disease, continuation of clinical research and lung cancer screening. In this review, we summarize available evidence regarding the direct and indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care and patients.

For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dual immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with CTLA4 inhibitors and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (hereafter, PD-(L)1 inhibitors) is associated with higher rates of anti-tumour activity and immune-related toxicities, when compared with treatment with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone. However, there are currently no validated biomarkers to identify which patients will benefit from dual ICB1,2. Here we show that patients with NSCLC who have mutations in the STK11 and/or KEAP1 tumour suppressor genes derived clinical benefit from dual ICB with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and the CTLA4 inhibitor tremelimumab, but not from durvalumab alone, when added to chemotherapy in the randomized phase III POSEIDON trial3. Unbiased genetic screens identified loss of both of these tumour suppressor genes as independent drivers of resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition, and showed that loss of Keap1 was the strongest genomic predictor of dual ICB efficacy—a finding that was confirmed in several mouse models of Kras-driven NSCLC. In both mouse models and patients, KEAP1 and STK11 alterations were associated with an adverse tumour microenvironment, which was characterized by a preponderance of suppressive myeloid cells and the depletion of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, but relative sparing of CD4+ effector subsets. Dual ICB potently engaged CD4+ effector cells and reprogrammed the tumour myeloid cell compartment towards inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)-expressing tumoricidal phenotypes that—together with CD4+ and CD8+ T cells—contributed to anti-tumour efficacy. These data support the use of chemo-immunotherapy with dual ICB to mitigate resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition in patients with NSCLC who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 alterations. Alterations in the tumour suppressor genes STK11 and/or KEAP1 can identify patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who are likely to benefit from combinations of PD-(L)1 and CTLA4 immune checkpoint inhibitors added to chemotherapy.