Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Sylvie Lantuejoul
Author of
-
+
ES08 - The Pathologist - An Essential Member of the Patient Care Team (ID 776)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Educational Session
- Track: Pathology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/26/2018, 13:30 - 15:00, Room 206 AC
-
+
ES08.02 - Immunotherapy (ID 11384)
13:50 - 14:10 | Presenting Author(s): Sylvie Lantuejoul
- Abstract
Abstract not provided
-
+
MA25 - Oligometastasis: Defining, Treating, and Evaluating (ID 929)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Oligometastatic NSCLC
- Presentations: 2
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/26/2018, 13:30 - 15:00, Room 203 BD
-
+
MA25.01 - EORTC Lung Cancer Group Survey to Define Synchronous Oligometastatic Disease in NSCLC (ID 13770)
13:30 - 13:35 | Author(s): Sylvie Lantuejoul
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Synchronous oligometastasic disease (sOMD) has been described as a separate disease entity; however there is no consensus on what specific criteria constitutes sOMD in NSCLC. A consensus group (CG) was formed aiming to agree on a common sOMD definition (sOMD-d) that could be used in future clinical trials. A European survey was circulated to inform the discussion on sOMD-d.
a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
An EORTC Lung Cancer Group (LCG) / sOMD-d CG survey containing 31 questions on sOMD-d was distributed between 14/12/17 and 19/02/18 to EORTC LCG, sOMD-d CG, and several European thoracic oncology societies’ members.
4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
444 responses were analyzed (radiation oncologist: 55% [n=242], pulmonologist: 15% [n=66], medical oncologist: 14% [n=64]; 78% with >5 years’ experience in treating NSCLC). Belgium (14%, n=62), Italy (12%, n=55), Germany (11%, n=47), and Netherlands (10%, n=44) contributed most. 81% (n=361) physicians aimed to cure sOMD NSCLC patients and 82% (n=361) included the possibility to treat the patient with radical intent in their sOMD-d. The maximum number of metastases considered in sOMD-d varied: 19%, 42%, 4%, and 17% replied <2, 3, 4, and >5 metastases, respectively. 79% (n=353) stated that the number of organs involved was important for sOMD-d, and most (80%, n=355) considered that only <3 involved organs (excluding primary) should be included in the definition. 317 (71.7%) allowed mediastinal lymph node involvement (MLN) in the sOMD-d, and 22.1% of them counted MLN as a metastatic site. For 195/327 (60%), when N2/N3 disease is included in the sOMD-d, there is no specific issue regarding the MLN volume/location as long as radical treatment is possible. 384 (86%) considered pulmonary metastasis (outside primary tumor: M1a) as metastatic site. Most physicians confirmed sOMD patients with brain MRI (91%, n=403) and PET-CT (98%, n=437). For mediastinum staging, most (64%, n=285) respondents stated that histology/cytology should be obtained when PET-CT shows suspected lymph nodes or in case of a central primary tumor. Pathology proof of metastatic disease was necessary in sOMD for 315 (71%) physicians, and 37% (n=163) acknowledged that histology should be obtained from at least from one metastatic site. Preferred primary outcome parameter in clinical trials of sOMD was overall survival (73%, n=325).
8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
Although certain consensual answers were obtained (81% aimed to cure and >90% mandated baseline imaging with PET-CT and brain MRI), a number of issues remain unresolved and will require further discussion by a panel of experts to agree on a sOMD-d.
6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MA25.02 - Searching for a Definition of Synchronous Oligometastatic (sOMD)-NSCLC: A Consensus from Thoracic Oncology Experts (ID 13452)
13:40 - 13:45 | Author(s): Sylvie Lantuejoul
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Recent prospective single centre studies reported improved outcomes in patients with sOMD-NSCLC who were treated with radical intent. Since then sOMD has been perceived as a separate disease entity. However, a clear definition of sOMD-NSCLC is lacking. We aimed to develop a definition and diagnostic criteria of sOMD-NSCLC following a consensus process.
a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
A European multidisciplinary consensus group was established with representatives from different scientific societies. Consensus questions were extracted from a survey, case series and a systematic review. The questions were discussed, and the statement formulated during a consensus meeting in Dublin (23.01.18).
4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
Summary of consensus statement
Defining sOMD-NSCLC
Definition of sOMD is relevant for patients in whom a radical treatment is technically feasible with acceptable toxicity, taking into account all sites, that may modify the course of the disease leading to a long-term disease control.
All sites must be technically and safely treatable.
The maximum number of metastases/organs meeting the criteria involved will depend on the possibility of offering a treatment strategy with radical intent, taking into account local control and toxicity. Based on the systematic review, a maximum of 5 metastases and 3 organs is proposed.
Diffuse serosal metastases and bone marrow involvement are excluded.
Mediastinal lymph node (MLN) involvement should be considered as locoregional disease in the definition of sOMD-NSCLC.
MLN involvement is of importance in determining if a radical local treatment of the primary tumour may be applied and the MLN will not be counted as a metastatic site.
Staging of sOMD-NSCLC
PET-CT and brain imaging are considered mandatory.
In case of a solitary liver metastasis a dedicated MRI of the liver and for a solitary pleural metastasis, thoracoscopy and biopsies of distant ipsilateral pleural sites are advised.
Staging of the mediastinum requires a minimum of a FDG-PET scan, with pathological confirmation preferred if this influences the treatment strategy.
Pathological proof is required unless the MDT decides that the risk outweighs the benefit. Pathology proof is advised for single metastatic location and if it may change the therapeutic strategy, confirmation of the MLN involvement is recommended.
8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
A multidisciplinary consensus statement on the definition and staging of sOMD-NSCLC was formulated taking into account results of a European survey, a systematic review and case discussion. This statement might be helpful to standardise inclusion criteria in future clinical trials. However, the definition of sOMD may change over time when more prospective data will become available.
6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
OA03 - Advances in Lung Cancer Pathology (ID 897)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Pathology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/24/2018, 10:30 - 12:00, Room 205 BD
-
+
OA03.03 - Phase 2B of Blueprint PD-L1 Immunohistochemistry Assay Comparability Study (ID 14530)
10:50 - 11:00 | Author(s): Sylvie Lantuejoul
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been established as companion or complementary diagnostic assays, each developed as predictive biomarker for specific anti PD1/PD-L1 immunotherapies. The Blueprint (BP) phase 1 comparability study demonstrated that three PD-L1 assays (28-8, 22C3, SP263) showed comparable analytical performance for assessment of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (TPS), while the SP-142 PD-L1 assay appeared to stain a lower percentage of tumor cells when compared to the other assays. The first part of BP phase 2 (BP2A) re-affirmed these findings in a larger cohort of ‘real life’ specimens scored by 24 experienced pulmonary pathologists, and also showed that the 73-10 assay developed for avelumab showed greater sensitivity than all other assays to detect PD-L1 on tumour cells. BP2A also demonstrated generally excellent inter-observer agreement for tumor cell PD-L1 scoring using both glass slides and digital images, with slightly lesser agreement for the cytology samples included in the study cohort. Inter-observer agreement for immune cell scoring on glass or digital slides was poor. Phase 2B of Blueprint (BP2B) aimed to compare PD-L1 scoring on triplet samples representing large tumor resection blocks, small biopsy samples and fine needle aspirate cell blocks prepared from the same tumor. a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
Triplet samples of large resected tumor block, small biopsy sample and fine needle aspirate cell block (the latter two taken from the resected tumour specimen) were gathered from 31 resected primary lung cancers (17 adenocarcinomas, 12 squamous cell carcinomas, and 2 large cell carcinomas). Sections from all 93 blocks were stained with the pharmDx 28-8 and 22C3, the FDA-approved SP142 and SP263, or clinical trial associated 73-10 PD-L1 assays, in a CLIA-approved immunohistochemistry laboratory. All H&E and PD-L1 IHC slides were scanned and digital images were used to score all cases by the same 24 pathologists involved in BP2A. As before, tumor cells PD-L1 staining were scored as continuous variable and into 7 cut-off-defined categories, as used in various immune checkpoint inhibitor trials. Immune cells were not scored. 4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
The data reaffirm the relative comparability of 28-8, 22C3 and SP263 assays across the range of scores; SP142 assay scores were lower, those for 73-10 higher. Inter-observer agreement between readers ranged from moderate to near perfect (Kappa-Fleiss (K-F) scores generally >0.7); best overall agreement was on aspirates. Overall, the agreement between scores on the different sample types from the same tumor was good (most K-F scores >0.7); aspirates showed no significant difference from biopsy samples or whole surgical blocks. In contrast to biopsies and surgical blocks, scores could, however, not be rendered in about 14% of aspirate sections. 8eea62084ca7e541d918e823422bd82e Conclusion
The results of BP2B confirms earlier results and also demonstrate comparable performance for fine needle aspirates in those cases where TPS scores were possible. 6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
