A phase II, single arm study of CarbopLatin plus Etoposide with Bevacizumab and Atezolizumab in patients with exTEnded-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) – CeLEBrATE trial

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine tumor diagnosed at extended disease SCLC (ES-SCLC) stage in about 70% of cases. The new standard of treatment for patients with ES-SCLC is a combination of platinum-etoposide chemotherapy and atezolizumab or durvalumab, two programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitory monoclonal antibodies (mAb). However, the benefit derived from the addition of PD-L1 inhibitors to chemotherapy in ES-SCLC was limited and restricted to a subset of patients. The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the most important pro-angiogenic factor implicated in cancer angiogenesis, which is abundant in SCLC and associated with poor prognosis. Antiangiogenic agents, such as bevacizumab, a humanized mAb against VEGF, added to platinum-etoposide chemotherapy improved progression-free survival in SCLC in two trials, but it did not translate into a benefit in overall survival. Nevertheless, VEGF has also acts as a mediator of an immunosuppressive microenvironment and its inhibition can revert the immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment and potentially enhance the efficacy of immunotherapies. Based on available preclinical data, we hypothesized that VEGF inhibition by bevacizumab could improve atezolizumab efficacy in a synergistic way and designed a phase II single-arm trial of bevacizumab in combination with carboplatin, etoposide, and atezolizumab as first-line treatment in ES-SCLC. The trial, which is still ongoing, enrolled 53 patients, including those with treated or untreated asymptomatic brain metastases (provided criteria are met), who received atezolizumab, bevacizumab, carboplatin and etoposide for 4-6 cycles (induction phase), followed by maintenance with atezolizumab and bevacizumab for a maximum of 18 total cycles or until disease progression, patient refusal, unacceptable toxicity. The evaluation of efficacy of the experimental combination in terms of 1-year overall survival rate is not yet mature (primary objective of the trial). The combination was feasible and the toxicity profile manageable (secondary objective of the trial).

Balloon pulmonary angioplasty in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: experience of four years in a single centre

Background: Balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) has recently been developed as an alternative and less- invasive treatment strategy for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), but therapeutic efficacy and technical safety of the technique have to be established. Aim: effects of BPA on patients with inoperable disease or residual pulmonary hypertension (PH) after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). Methods: From June 2015 to September 2019 we enrolled symptomatic (NYHA ≥ II) inoperable CTEPH patients and patients with residual PH after PEA. At baseline, immediately before the first BPA session and 3-6 months after last BPA session all patients underwent clinical evaluation, six-minute walking distance and right heart catheterization. For comparisons Friedman test (with Bonferroni post-hoc pairwise analysis) was used. Survival curves were done with Kaplan Meier method. Results: Forty-seven patients [male 45%, median age 68 (51-74) years, 40 inoperable and 7 with residual PH after PEA] were treated for a total of 136 sessions (median number of sessions for each patient: 2); during each session we treated 2 (2-3) vessels; BPA significantly improved symptoms (NYHA III-IV from 85 to 42%), exercise capacity (from 425 to 446 m) and hemodynamic profile (reduction of mean pulmonary arterial pressure from 41 to 35 mmHg and of pulmonary vascular resistance from 7.1 to 4.7 WU). Five pulmonary artery dissection and 2 hemoptysis with clinical impairment were documented; 33 patients had lung injury (radiographic opacity with/without hemoptysis and/or hypoxemia), 7 patients had access site complications. Five patients died during follow-up (none within 30 days from the procedure) because of sepsis (1), heart failure (1), cancer (1), arrhythmic storm (1) and sudden death in a patient with severe coronary atherosclerosis (1). Conclusions: BPA is a safe and effective treatment able to improve symptoms and hemodynamic profile in inoperable CTEPH patients and in patients with residual PH after PEA.