BACKGROUND:Anti-PD-L1 antibodies with platinum-etoposide extend overall survival (OS) of extensive disease Small Cell Lung Cancer (ED-SCLC) patients. We evaluated the benefit of first-line pembrolizumab with platinum-etoposide in chemo-sensitive ED-SCLC. METHODS:REACTION is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial. Eligible patients (responders after 2 cycles of platinum-etoposide) were randomized 1:1 to experimental arm pembrolizumab in combination with 4 cycles of platinum-etoposide then pembrolizumab vs platinum-etoposide in the control arm. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) were enumerated and their association with PFS and OS was investigated. RESULTS:Between Feb 7, 2018 and Oct 31, 2019, 125 patients were recruited (61 vs 64 experimental and control arms respectively) with 119 (58 vs 61) eligible and receiving at least one dose of treatment. Baseline characteristics were median age 65 vs 63.5 years, PS 1 (62 vs 60 %), and brain metastases (8 vs 11 %), in the experimental and control arms respectively. Amongst 124 patients who started treatment, 46 (37 %) experienced adverse events grade ≥ 3 for pembrolizumab arm vs 26 % in the control arm. Response rate was 61 % (67 vs 56 %). Median PFS (95 % CI) was 4.7 months (4.2, 5.6) vs 5.4 (4.7, 5.6), HR (80 % CI) = 0.84 (0.65, 1.09) and 1-sided p = 0.194. Median OS (95 % CI) was 12.3 months (8.9, 14.8) vs 10.4 (8.2, 12.2), HR (80 % CI) = 0.73 (0.54, 1.0) and 1-sided p = 0.097. CTC count per 7.5 ml blood at randomization was associated significantly with both PFS and OS regardless of treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS:Pembrolizumab added to platinum-etoposide did not improve PFS over platinum-etoposide alone in chemo-sensitive patients with ED.

Background:MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping mutations are oncogenic drivers observed in approximately 3-4% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Several distinct genetic alterations leading to METex14 have been reported but clinical significances of rare mutations are not well defined as well as outcomes of patients upon MET inhibitors (METi). Case presentation:This report presents the case of a patient with metastatic NSCLC harboring an uncommon MET mutational landscape including notably a novel METex14 mutation (R1022L). Dramatic but transient efficacy was observed under crizotinib, due to early occurrence of acquired both on- and off-target mechanisms of resistance such as MET D1246H mutation and wild-type KRAS amplification. Conclusion:Our case provides additional data on MET rare oncogenic variants and their sensitivity to METi. Systematic assessment of post-tyrosine kinase inhibitor tumor sample remains critical to identify on- and off-target mechanisms that may represent therapeutically targetable drivers in resistant patients.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Osimertinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with common sensitizing EGFR-mutant advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) although the sequential approach (first-generation inhibitor gefitinib followed by osimertinib) has not been formally compared. The phase II APPLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856893 ) enrolled 156 treatment-naïve patients, and two treatment strategies were evaluated: osimertinib up front or the sequential treatment approach with gefitinib up front followed by osimertinib at the time of progression, either molecular progression (detection of plasma T790M resistance mutation) regardless of the radiologic status or just at the time of radiologic progression. Patients' characteristics were well balanced, except for the higher proportion of baseline brain metastases in the sequential approach (29% v 19%). Per protocol, 73% of patients switched to osimertinib in the sequential arm. Up-front treatment with osimertinib was associated with a lower risk of brain progression versus the sequential approach (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [90% CI, 0.34 to 0.86]), but a comparable overall survival was observed between both strategies (HR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.61 to 1.68]), with the 18-month survival probability of 84% and 82.3%, respectively. The APPLE trial suggests that a sequential treatment approach is associated with more frequent progression in the brain but a similar survival in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Background: Pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy is now first-line standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This real-life study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of carboplatin-pemetrexed plus pembrolizumab in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.Methods: CAP29 is a retrospective, observational, multicenter real-life study conducted in 6 French centers. We evaluated efficacy of first-line setting chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab (November 2019 to September 2020) in advanced (stage III-IV) non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients without targetable alterations. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response rate and safety. Results: With a median follow-up of 4.5 months (0 to 22 months), a total of 121 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were: median age of 59.8 years with 7.4% >= 75 years, 58.7% of males, 91.8% PS 0-1, 87.6% of stage IV with >= 3 metastatic sites in 62% of cases. Patients had brain and liver metastases in 24% and 15.7% of cases, respectively. PD-L1 was <1% (44.6%), 1-49% (28.1%) and >= 50% (21.5%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival achieved 9 and 20.6 months, respectively. Objective response rate was 63.7% with 7 prolonged complete responses. Survival benefit seemed to be correlated with PD-L1 expression. Brain and liver metastases were not statistically associated with decreased overall survival. Most common adverse events were asthenia (76%), anemia (61.2%), nausea (53.7%), decreased appetite (37.2%) and liver cytolysis (34.7%). Renal and hepatic disorders were the main causes of pemetrexed discontinuation. Grade 3-4 adverse events concerned 17.5% of patients. Two treatment-related deaths were reported. Conclusions: First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy confirmed real-life efficacy for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. With median progression-free survival and overall survival of 9.0 and 20.6 months, respectively and no new safety signal, our real-life data are very close to results provided by clinical trials, confirming the benefit and the manageable toxicity profile of this combination.

Supplementary Table S1: Best response rates for primary tumors and metastases in 67 patients (ITT population) treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin

Background: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) ultimately progress either rapidly (primary resistance) or after durable benefit (secondary resistance). The cancer vaccine OSE2101 may invigorate antitumor-specific immune responses after ICB failure. The objective of ATALANTE-1 was to evaluate its efficacy and safety in these patients. Patients and methods: ATALANTE-1 was a two-step open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSE2101 compared to standard-of-care (SoC) chemotherapy (CT). Patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2-positive advanced NSCLC without actionable alterations, failing sequential or concurrent CT and ICB were randomized (2 : 1) to OSE2101 or SoC (docetaxel or pemetrexed). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Interim OS futility analysis was planned as per Fleming design. In April 2020 at the time of interim analysis, a decision was taken to prematurely stop the accrual due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Final analysis was carried out in all patients and in the subgroup of patients with ICB secondary resistance defined as failure after ICB monotherapy second line >12 weeks. Results: Two hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (139 OSE2101, 80 SoC); 118 had secondary resistance to sequential ICB. Overall, median OS non-significantly favored OSE2101 over SoC {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.86 [0.62-1.19], P = 0.36}. In the secondary resistance subgroup, OSE2101 significantly improved median OS versus SoC [11.1 versus 7.5 months; HR (95% CI) 0.59 (0.38-0.91), P = 0.017], and significantly improved post-progression survival (HR 0.46, P = 0.004), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status deterioration (HR 0.43, P = 0.006) and Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) global health status compared to SoC (P = 0.045). Six-month disease control rates and progression-free survival were similar between groups. Grade >3 adverse effects occurred in 11.4% of patients with OSE2101 and 35.1% in SoC (P = 0.002). Conclusions: In HLA-A2-positive patients with advanced NSCLC and secondary resistance to immunotherapy, OSE2101 increased survival with better safety compared to CT. Further evaluation in this population is warranted.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of second-line metronomic oral vinorelbine-atezolizumab combination for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS:This was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm Phase II study performed in patients with advanced NSCLC without activating EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Combination treatment was atezolizumab (1200 mg IV day 1, every 3 weeks) and oral vinorelbine (40 mg, 3 times by week). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) during the 4-month follow-up from the first dose of treatment. Statistical analysis was based on the exact single-stage Phase II design defined by A'Hern. Based on literature data, the Phase III trial threshold was set at 36 successes in 71 patients. RESULTS:71 patients were analyzed (median age, 64 years; male, 66.2%; ex-smokers/active smokers, 85.9%; ECOG performance status 0-1, 90.2%; non-squamous NSCLC, 83.1%; PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 4.4%). After a median follow-up of 8.1 months from treatment initiation, 4-month PFS rate was 32% (95% CI, 22-44), i.e. 23 successes out 71 patients. OS rate was 73.2% at 4 months and 24.3% at 24 months. Median PFS and OS were 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.0) months and 7.9 (95% CI, 4.8-11.4) months, respectively. Overall response rate and disease control rate at 4 months were 11% (95% CI, 5-21) and 32% (95% CI, 22-44), respectively. No safety signal was evidenced. CONCLUSION:Metronomic oral vinorelbine-atezolizumab in the second-line setting did not achieve the predefined PFS threshold. No new safety signal was reported for vinorelbine-atezolizumab combination.

APPLE is a 3 arms phase II non-comparative trial exploring the sequential treatment approach of gefitinib followed by osimertinib or osimertinib frontline in patients with advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Here we report the exploratory analysis of the outcome with osimertinib frontline compared to a sequential approach.

Background: The APPLE trial aimed to evaluate the feasibility of longitudinal plasma epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M monitoring for the best sequencing strategy of gefitinib and osimertinib. Methods: APPLE is a randomized, non-comparative, phase II study in patients with common EGFR-mutant, treatment -naive non-small-cell lung cancer including three arms: arm A (osimertinib upfront until RECIST progression, PD), arm B [gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation by cobas EGFR test v2 or RECIST PD], and arm C (gefitinib until RECIST PD), and then switch to osimertinib in both arms. The primary endpoint is the progression-free survival (PFS) rate 'on osimertinib' at 18 months (PFSR-OSI-18) after randomization in arm B (H0: PFSR-OSI-18 of <40%). Secondary endpoints include response rate, overall survival (OS), and brain PFS. We report the results of arms B and C. Results: From November 2017 to February 2020, 52 and 51 patients were randomized into arms B and C, respectively. Most patients were females (70%) and had EGFR Del19 (65%); one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients (8/47) switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before RECIST PD, with a median time to molecular PD of 266 days. The study met its primary endpoint of PFSR-OSI-18 of 67.2% (84% confidence interval 56.4% to 75.9%) in arm B versus 53.5% (84% confidence interval 42.3% to 63.5%) in arm C, with a median PFS of 22.0 months versus 20.2 months, respectively. The median OS was not reached in arm B versus 42.8 months in arm C. Median brain PFS in arms B and C was 24.4 and 21.4 months, respectively. Conclusions: The serial monitoring of ctDNA T790M status in advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer during treatment with first-generation EGFR inhibitors was feasible, and a molecular progression before RECIST PD led to an earlier switch to osimertinib in 17% of patients with satisfactory PFS and OS outcomes.

Appendix Methods and Materials, Tables 1-4, Figures 1-3. Appendix Table 1: Characteristics of patients at baseline Appendix Table 2: Best response rates for primary tumors and metastases in 24 patients treated with second-line bevacizumab plus erlotinib Appendix Table 3: PFS, OS, and response rates according to EGFR mutation status in 24 patients treated with second-line bevacizumab plus erlotinib Appendix Table 4: Overview of AEs in 24 patients treated with second-line bevacizumab plus erlotinib Appendix Figure 1. Response rates for patients treated with second-line bevacizumab plus erlotinib. Appendix Figure 2. Waterfall plots of best overall response for patients treated with second-line bevacizumab plus erlotinib. Appendix Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier curves for second-line treatment with bevacizumab plus erlotinib.

Pembrolizumab (pembro) ± chemotherapy is currently standard-of-care (SoC) first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic nonsquamous (NSQ) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR, BRAF or ALK/ROS aberrations. Carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 5 (CEACAM5) expression is often higher in cancerous vs healthy lung cells. Tusamitamab ravtansine (tusa rav) is a humanized CEACAM5-specific antibody-drug conjugate linked to DM4. Tusa rav monotherapy has shown encouraging antitumor activity and safety in patients with heavily pretreated CEACAM5-positive NSQ NSCLC. CARMEN-LC05 assessed safety and antitumor activity of tusa rav in combination with SoC regimens: with pembro [T2]; with pembro + platinum-based chemotherapy (pCT) [T3]; and with pembro + pCT + pemetrexed [T4] in patients with advanced/metastatic NSQ NSCLC with CEACAM5 intensity of ≥2+ in ≥1% of tumor cells by immunohistochemistry. Tusa rav was given IV Q3W at 150 or 170 mg/m2 in each treatment arm. As of Nov 28, 2022, 25 patients were treated for a median of 21 weeks (range 3–86); 12 (48%) were still on treatment. Dose-limiting toxicity of increased aspartate aminotransferase occurred in 1 patient in the T4 tusa rav 170 mg/m2 group. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were nausea (44%), diarrhea (36%), and asthenia (32%); Grade ≥3 events occurred in 68%; and Grade 5 events in 16% in the treatment period (all unrelated to tusa rav). Corneal TEAEs of any grade occurred in 24% of patients; but only 1 (keratitis) was Grade ≥3 in the T2 tusa rav 170 mg/m2 group. Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for all patients were 40% and 88%, respectively. Tusa rav combined with SoC showed encouraging antitumor activity across all treatment arms with a favorable safety profile, including in the T4 arm, and no new safety concerns, supporting ongoing evaluation of tusa rav.

AbstractBackgroundFew therapeutic options are approved as second‐line treatment after failure of platinum‐based chemotherapy for patients with extensive‐stage small‐cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC). Topotecan widespread use remains challenged by the risk of severe toxicities in a pretreated population. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of epirubicin–paclitaxel doublet in second‐line and beyond and especially cerebral outcomes.MethodsEpiTax is a retrospective multicenter observational real‐life study. We evaluated the efficacy of epirubicin 90 mg/m2 combined with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks in SCLC patients after failure of at least one line of platinum‐based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), intracranial control rate (ICR), and safety.ResultsA total of 29 patients were included. The median of previous systemic therapy lines was 2 (1–4). Eleven patients received the treatment in the second line. Characteristics of patients were a median age of 60 years (45–77), 65.5% of males with 72.4% of PS 0–1. Fifteen patients had a history of brain metastases. Median PFS and OS achieved 11.0 (95% CI, 8.1–16.3) and 23 (95% CI, 14.1–29.6) weeks, respectively. ORR was 34.5% and DCR was 55.2%. ICR was 3/15 (20%). Grade 3–4 adverse events were mainly hematological and concerned 7 patients. No case of febrile neutropenia or toxic death was reported.ConclusionEpirubicin–paclitaxel association highlighted promising efficacy with PFS and OS of 11 and 23 weeks, respectively, ORR of 34.5%, and a tolerable safety profile. This doublet could represent another valuable therapeutic option for ES‐SCLC patients treated in the second line and beyond.

Chemotherapy (CT) combined with anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy (IO) is now standard first-line setting for patients with extensive SCLC. However, no reliable biomarker can predict which patients will benefit the most from this association. Imaging Mass Cytometry (IMC) Hyperion® (Fluidigm) is a new multiplex strategy allowing the characterization of different cell populations in tumor microenvironment (TME) and could highlight strong biomarkers.

BACKGROUND:Pemetrexed and gemcitabine are both antimetabolites drugs approved in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Their toxicity profile is well known. However, rare vascular side effects can occur such as vascular acrosyndromes and especially digital ischemia. The cause of this disfiguring and painful event is still controversial. Amputation is frequently required and has been described as a predictor of poor survival outcomes.CASE PRESENTATION:This report presents two cases of vascular acrosyndrome in NSCLC patients during treatment with antimetabolites (pemetrexed and gemcitabine). Patients presented severe digital ischemia having required prostacyclin analog and chemotherapy discontinuation. In one case, symptoms improved while in the other case symptoms persisted. Both patients experienced prolonged tumor response. These findings suggest a multifactorial mechanism behind digital necrosis including an autoimmune process, which could lead to prolonged tumor control as described with immune checkpoint inhibitors.CONCLUSION:Severe vascular acrosyndrome such as digital ischemia can occur in lung cancer patients treated with antimetabolites. Awareness needs to be raised when using these drugs in patients with predisposing factors. Whether occurrence of chemotherapy-induced immune vascular side effects might explain prolonged tumor response deserves further investigations.

Background: The role and timing of whole or stereotaxic brain radiotherapy (BR) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and asymptomatic brain metastases (aBMs) are not well established. This study investigates whether deferring BR until cerebral progression was superior to upfront BR for patients with aNSCLC and aBM. Methods: This open-label, multicenter, phase III trial, randomized (1:1) aNSCLC patients with aBMs to receive upfront BR and chemotherapy: platin–pemetrexed and bevacizumab in eligible patients, followed by maintenance pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab, BR arm, or the same chemotherapy with BR only at cerebral progression, chemotherapy (ChT) arm. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), global, extra-cerebral and cerebral objective response rate (ORR), toxicity, and quality of life [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162537]. Results: The trial was stopped early because of slow recruitment. Among 95 included patients, 91 were randomized in 24 centers: 45 to BR and 46 to ChT arms (age: 60 ± 8.1, men: 79%, PS 0/1: 51.7%/48.3%; adenocarcinomas: 92.2%, extra-cerebral metastases: 57.8%, without differences between arms.) Significantly more patients in the BR-arm received BR compare with those in the ChT arm (87% versus 20%; p < 0.001); there were no significant differences between BR and ChT arms for median PFS: 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI):3.4–7.5 versus 4.8, 95% CI: 2.4–6.5 months, for median OS: 8.5, 95% CI:.6–11.1 versus 8.3, 95% CI:4.5–11.5 months, cerebral and extra-cerebral ORR (27% versus 13%, p = 0.064, and 30% versus 41%, p = 0.245, respectively). The ChT arm had more grade 3/4 neutropenia than the BR arm (13% versus 6%, p = 0.045); others toxicities were comparable. Conclusion: The significant BR rate difference between the two arms suggests that upfront BR is not mandatory in aNSCLC with aBM but this trial failed to show that deferring BR for aBM is superior in terms of PFS from upfront BR.

Background. Henoch–Schönlein purpura (HSP) is an uncommon syndrome that mostly occurs in children, in whom it is frequently triggered by infections. In contrast, HSP in adults is more frequently of neoplastic origin. Case Presentation. We report HSP associated with a locally advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma that was considered a paraneoplastic syndrome. Systemic corticosteroids were given because a kidney biopsy revealed active glomerulonephritis. Concomitant chemoradiotherapy achieved a partial response of the lung tumor. Consolidation immunotherapy (programmed death protein-1-ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitor) was cancelled because HSP is known to be an autoimmune vasculitis, and long-term corticosteroid therapy was pursued. Conclusion. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect of anti-PD-(L) 1 immunotherapies on autoimmune manifestations.

Introduction: This open-label, phase 1-2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T), an antibody-drug conjugate targeting DLL3, plus immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab in previously treated extensive-stage SCLC (ES SCLC). Methods: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed, previously treated (two or more lines of therapy) ES SCLC were enrolled into two cohorts. Cohort 1 received 0.3 mg/kg Rova-T (once every 6 wk for two cycles) plus 360 mg nivolumab (two 3-wk cycles beginning on week 4). Cohort 2 received the same dosage of Rova-T as cohort 1 plus 1 mg/kg nivolumab (four 3-wk cycles) and 1 mg/kg ipilimumab (beginning week 4). Both cohorts received 480 mg nivolumab every 4 weeks starting at week 10. Key objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability and efficacy (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). The response related results are based on centrally read data. Results: A total of 42 patients received therapy: cohort 1, n = 30; cohort 2, n = 12. Overall, 43% received two or more previous lines of therapy. All patients experienced one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 41 patients reported AEs considered related to the study drug by the investigator. The most frequent TEAE was pleural effusion (n = 20, 48%); most common grade greater than or equal to 3 was anemia (n = 9, 21%). Three grade 5 TEAEs considered related to the study drug were reported (cohort 1): pneumonitis (n = 2), acute kidney injury (n = 1). The objective response rate was 30% (12 of 40): cohort 1, 27.6% (8 of 29); cohort 2, 36.4% (4 of 11); all partial responses. Conclusions: Despite encouraging antitumor activity in previously treated ES SCLC, combination therapy with Rova-T and nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab was not well tolerated at the dose levels and administration schedules evaluated. (c) 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

BACKGROUND:The phase 3 MYSTIC study of durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with tumor cell (TC) programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 25% did not meet its primary endpoints. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS:Treatment-naïve patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab, durvalumab + tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were assessed in patients with PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% using EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30/LC13. Changes from baseline (12 months) for prespecified PRO endpoints of interest were analyzed by mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time to deterioration (TTD) by stratified log-rank tests. RESULTS:There were no between-arm differences in baseline PROs (N = 488). Between-arm differences in MMRM-adjusted mean changes from baseline favored at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P < .01) for C30 fatigue: durvalumab (-9.5; 99% confidence interval [CI], -17.0 to -2.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (-11.7; 99% CI, -19.4 to -4.1); and for C30 appetite loss: durvalumab (-11.9; 99% CI, -21.1 to -2.7). TTD was longer with at least one of the durvalumab-containing arms versus chemotherapy (nominal P < .01) for global health status/quality of life: durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0); and for physical functioning: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30); as well as for the key symptoms of dyspnea: durvalumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-1.0) (both LC13); fatigue: durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.8); and appetite loss: durvalumab (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), durvalumab + tremelimumab (HR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) (both C30). CONCLUSION:Durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus chemotherapy reduced symptom burden and improved TTD of PROs, suggesting it had no detrimental effects on quality of life in metastatic NSCLC patients.