Room C Proffered Paper session
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Location
Room C
Chairs
  • A. Dingemans (Maastricht, Netherlands)
  • T. Mitsudomi (Osaka, Japan)
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

68O - Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy in the European cohort of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study

Presentation Number
68O
Lecture Time
16:30 - 16:45
Speakers
  • K. Lau (London, United Kingdom)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • K. Lau (London, United Kingdom)
  • J. Flandes (Madrid, Spain)
  • M. Christensen (Copenhagen, Denmark)
  • M. Bezzi (Firenze, Italy)
  • B. Lamprecht (Linz, Austria)
  • M. Salio (Genova, Italy)
  • J. Vergnon (St. Etienne, cédex 2, France)
  • M. Studnicka (Salzburg, Austria)
  • M. Trigiani (Firenze, Italy)
  • I. Fernandez (Madrid, Spain)
  • R. Kropfmüller (Linz, Austria)
  • E. Barisione (Genova, Italy)
  • N. Viby (Copenhagen, Denmark)
  • S. Khandhar (Falls Church, VA, United States of America)
  • E. Folch (Boston, MA, United States of America)

Abstract

Background

Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) is an image-guided approach to access peripheral pulmonary lesions. ENB has been evaluated in a prospective global study (NAVIGATE, NCT02410837, Khandhar, BMC Pulm Med 2017;17:59). Practice patterns and safety specifically in the full European cohort have not yet been presented. The objective of this study is to evaluate ENB safety and usage in the NAVIGATE European sites.

Methods

NAVIGATE is a global, prospective, multicenter study of ENB (superDimension™ navigation system) use in community and academic settings. A prespecified 1-month interim analysis was conducted of the European cohort.

Results

Subjects (n = 175) were enrolled at 8 European sites, with complete 1-month follow-up in 99.4%. ENB was used to aid in lung biopsy in 99.4% (174/175) and fiducial marking in 8.0% (14/175). Lymph node sampling was attempted in 12 procedures (9 using linear EBUS). General anesthesia was used in 57%, radial EBUS in 4.0%, cone-beam CT in 9.7%, fluoroscopy in 41.7%, and rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in 17.9%. The median lesion size was 18.0 mm. Lesions were in the peripheral third of the lung in 72.7% and the upper lobe in 62.6%. A bronchus sign was present in 66.8%. Navigation was successful in 96.6% of biopsy cases. The median ENB planning time was 12.5 minutes. The median total procedure time (bronchoscope in to bronchoscope out) was 43.5 minutes, which included 32.9 minutes of ENB-specific navigation/sampling time (first entry to last exit of the locatable guide or extended working channel). The ENB-related pneumothorax rate was 7.4% (13/175), 5.1% requiring intervention or hospitalization. The ENB-related Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade ≥2 bronchopulmonary hemorrhage and Grade ≥4 respiratory failures rates were 2.3% and 0.6%, respectively. Longer follow-up is required to assess diagnostic yield.

Conclusions

The results from the European cohort of the NAVIGATE study suggest that ENB provides a safe platform to aid in lung lesion biopsy. ENB also allows multidimensional lung lesion biopsy, fiducial placement, and concurrent lymph node sampling during a single anesthetic event.

Clinical trial identification

NCT02410837. First posted April 8, 2015.

Editorial acknowledgement

Medical writing support was provided by Kristin L. Hood PhD of Medtronic, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Medtronic.

Funding

Medtronic.

Disclosure

K. Lau, M. Christensen, M. Bezzi, B. Lamprecht, M. Salio, J.M. Vergnon, M. Studnicka, M. Trigiani, I. Fernandez, R. Kropfmüller, E. Barisione, N-E. Viby: Research funding to institution for participating in the Medtronic-sponsored NAVIGATE study. J. Flandes: Consulting fees, research funding to institution: Medtronic (Steering Committee, study principal investigator); Consulting fees: BTG-PneumRx, Olympus, Ambu, PulmonX, Boston Scientific; Research grant support: BTG-PneumRx. S. Khandhar: Consulting fees: Medtronic (study principal investigator and Steering Committee, clinical advisory board); Advisory board: Boston Scientific; Research funding to institution: Medtronic-sponsored NAVIGATE study; Stock ownership: TransEnterix. E. Folch: Consulting fees: Medtronic (study principal investigator, Steering Committee, clinical advisory board); Scientific advisory board: Boston Scientific.

Collapse
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

69O - Comprehensive profiling of genomic and TCR repertoire in localized stage lung adenocarcinomas from a prospective cohort study

Presentation Number
69O
Lecture Time
16:45 - 17:00
Speakers
  • K. Chen (Beijing, China)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • K. Chen (Beijing, China)
  • J. Bai (Beijing, China)
  • H. Zhao (Beijing, China)
  • F. Yang (Beijing, China)
  • C. Zhang (Beijing, China)
  • Y. Wang (Beijing, China)
  • L. Chang (Beijing, China)
  • Y. Guan (Beijing, China)
  • X. Yi (Beijing, China)
  • L. Feng (Beijing, China)
  • K. Zhang (Beijing, China)
  • S. Cheng (Beijing, China)
  • J. Wang (Beijing, China)

Abstract

Background

Recently, neoadjuvant targeted therapy and immunotherapy have presented a promising clinical effect for localized stage non-small cell lung cancer. However, the characteristics and relationship of genomic and immune profiling in surgical lung adenocarcinomas has been poorly delineated to date.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 100 consecutive patients with pulmonary nodule who intended to undergo curative lung resection during June 2017 to July 2018 (NCT03320044). We investigated the TCR repertoire using next-generation deep sequencing of the complementarity determining region 3 (CDR3) of the TCR β chain in the tissue and WBC samples. Target-capture deep sequencing of 1021 genes was used to detect genomic variations in both tissue and paired plasma samples.

Results

EGFR (65.4%), TP53 (36.5%) and KRAS (11.5%) mutated most frequently. KRAS (84.6%) was enriched in mucinous adenocarcinoma. High invasive subtype and no ground-glass opacity status is more likely to be increasing tissue TMB (p = 0.0016, p = 0.0012), higher T-cell clonality (p = 0.05, p = 0.05), and more HLA-LOH event (p = 0.038, p = 0.035). A median of TNB was 2 neoantigens/Mb and showed positive relation with TMB (r = 0.97, p < 0.0001). EGFR-mutant co-occurring mutations were enriched TGF-beta, PI3K-Akt, hippo and Leukocyte trans-endothelial migration pathway (q < 0.05). Lower TCR clonality was shown in patients with EGFR mutation and co-occurring hippo or Leukocyte trans-endothelial migration pathway. Alterations in DNA damage response (DDR) pathways were observed in 15.8% patients, and these patients showed higher clonality (p = 0.03). 35.3%(24/68) ctDNA-positive were found in Stage I with a mean ctDNA abundance of 0.18% (ranged from 0.012 to 3.3%), which suggested the challenge of bTMB in biomarker study of early-stage LUAD. Analysis of TCR repertoire from available paired WBC showed no obvious characteristics.

Conclusions

This is the first prospective study integrating the correlation of genomic alteration and T-cell receptor in localized surgical LUAD. Analysis of co-altered pathway of EGFR-mutant LUAD and immune microenviroment will provide a better understanding in choosing biomarkers and optimal benefit patients for neoadjuvant therapy.

Clinical trial identification

NCT03320044.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Jun Wang.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.81602001).

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Collapse
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

Invited Discussant 68O and 69O

Lecture Time
17:00 - 17:15
Speakers
  • A. Dingemans (Maastricht, Netherlands)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • A. Dingemans (Maastricht, Netherlands)
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

83O - Impact of subsequent post-discontinuation immunotherapy on overall survival in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC from PACIFIC

Presentation Number
83O
Lecture Time
17:15 - 17:30
Speakers
  • P. Dennis (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • M. Ouwens (London, United Kingdom)
  • A. Darilay (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
  • Y. Zhang (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
  • P. Mukhopadhyay (Gaithersburg, United States of America)
  • H. Mann (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
  • J. Ryan (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
  • P. Dennis (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)

Abstract

Background

In cancer trials, pts often receive subsequent lines of anticancer Tx following progression, which, in standard ITT analyses, can lead to bias and underestimation of OS Tx effect. In the phase 3 PACIFIC trial of durvalumab vs. placebo in Stage III NSCLC pts without progression after CRT, both primary endpoints PFS and OS were met, significantly improved with durvalumab. However, after discontinuation, many pts received further anticancer Tx (41% and 54% in the durvalumab and placebo groups), including immunotherapies (IMTs), which may have influenced OS. Using the Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time (RPSFT) model, we quantified the specific impact of subsequent IMT on OS in PACIFIC.

Methods

RPSFT modeling is commonly used for analysis of trials with crossover. By assuming a similar effect for Tx in different sequences, RPSFT is capable to pinpoint the most likely effect size based on observed data. Here, we adapted RPSFT to isolate the likely effect of subsequent IMT by assuming similar mortality risk reduction for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab. RPSFT analyses were applied to quantify health outcomes for two hypothetical scenarios: (1) no subsequent IMT was received by pts in either arm, and (2) among placebo pts who received subsequent Tx (54%), all received IMT as first subsequent Tx, and durvalumab pts received no subsequent IMT, to test if delaying IMT was detrimental.

Results

Among pts randomized to durvalumab and placebo, 8% (38/476) and 22% (53/237), respectively, received subsequent IMT. Within the ITT population, the HR for OS with durvalumab vs. placebo was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53–0.87), with respective median OS not reached (NR) and 28.7 months. For scenario 1, there was minimal change in OS, with an estimated HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.52–0.86) and identical median OS estimates. For scenario 2, the estimated HR was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62–1.00), with median OS NR and 32.2 months, respectively.

Conclusions

After removing the effects of subsequent IMT, the OS benefit with durvalumab was still evident compared with the ITT analysis. In addition, early Tx with durvalumab after CRT appeared to be associated with improved OS compared with starting IMT after progression.

Clinical trial identification

NCT02125461.

Editorial acknowledgement

Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Hashem Dbouk, PhD, of Cirrus Communications, an Ashfield company, and was funded by AstraZeneca.

Legal entity responsible for the study

AstraZeneca.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Disclosure

M. Ouwens, Y. Zhang, P. Mukhopadhyay: Employment, stock options: AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of the study. A. Darilay, J. Ryan: Employment, stock: AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of the study. H. Mann: Employment: AstraZeneca, outside conduct of the study. P.A. Dennis: Employment, stocks: AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work.

Collapse
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

LBA2 - Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with durvalumab by PD-L1 expression in unresectable, stage III NSCLC (PACIFIC)

Presentation Number
LBA2
Lecture Time
17:30 - 17:45
Speakers
  • M. Garassino (Milan, Italy)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • M. Garassino (Milan, Italy)
  • L. Paz-Ares (Madrid, Spain)
  • R. Hui (Westmead, NSW, Australia)
  • C. Faivre-Finn (Manchester, United Kingdom)
  • A. Spira (Fairfax, United States of America)
  • D. Planchard (Villejuif, France)
  • M. Ozguroglu (Istanbul, Turkey)
  • D. Daniel (Chattanooga, United States of America)
  • D. Vicente (Seville, Spain)
  • S. Murakami (Chou-ku, Tokyo, Japan)
  • A. Rydén (MÖLNDAL, Sweden)
  • Y. Zhang (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
  • C. O'Brien (Macclesfield, United Kingdom)
  • P. Dennis (Gaithersburg, MD, United States of America)
  • S. Antonia (Tampa, FL, United States of America)

Abstract

Background

In the ph 3 PACIFIC study of Stage III NSCLC pts without progression after cCRT, PFS and OS were significantly improved with durva vs. pbo, with no detrimental effect on PROs. We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumour PD-L1 expression on PROs.

Background

In the phase 3 PACIFIC study of unresectable, Stage III NSCLC pts without progression after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), the primary endpoints PFS and OS were significantly improved with durvalumab versus placebo with similar safety and no detrimental effect on PROs. We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumour PD-L1 expression on PROs to better understand the benefit/risk profile of durvalumab across all PD-L1 subgroups.

Methods

After ≥2 cCRT cycles, pts were randomised (2:1) to durva 10 mg/kg or pbo IV q2w up to 12 mo. If available, optional pre-cCRT tumour tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumour cell (TC) expression using the VENTANA SP263 immunohistochemistry assay and scored at pre-specified (25% or unknown) and post-hoc (1%) cutoffs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13 with changes from BL analysed by a mixed model for repeated measures, HRs for time to deterioration (TTD) by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model, and ORs for improvement rates by logistic regression.

Methods

After cCRT with ≥2 chemotherapy cycles, pts were randomised (2:1) to durvalumab 10 mg/kg or placebo IV q2w up to 12 months. If available, optional pre-cCRT tumour tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumour cell (TC) expression using the VENTANA SP263 immunohistochemistry assay and scored at pre-specified (25%) and post-hoc (1%) cutoffs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and -LC13 with changes from baseline (BL) analysed by a mixed model for repeated measures, hazard ratios (HRs) for time to deterioration (TTD) by a Cox proportional-hazards model, and odd ratios (ORs) for improvement rates by logistic regression.

Results

Of 713 pts, 63% had known PD-L1 status. Compliance was high (>80% at Wk 48) across all five PD-L1 subgroups (TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1%, <1%, and unknown). Most PROs remained stable; however, similar to the ITT population, clinically relevant improvements from BL to Wk 48 were observed for dysphagia and alopecia across most subgroups (4/5 and 5/5, respectively) for durva (mean changes 10.1−20.9 and 15.5−26.9) and all for pbo (10.4−19.4 and 15.8−31.3); plus improvements with pbo for TC ≥25% (12.5 for chest pain and constipation) and TC <25% (10.0 for appetite loss and arm/shoulder pain). Across most subgroups, there were no TTD differences, except those favouring durva: for TC ≥25%, chest pain (HR=0.57), physical functioning (0.60), emotional functioning (0.47), pain (0.56), and haemoptysis (0.42); and, similar to ITT, for TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1% and <1%, ‘other pain’ (0.60, 0.57, 0.67 and 0.39, respectively). Improvement rates were also similar, except as follows, favouring durva: for TC ≥25%, role functioning (OR=2.84) and, similar to ITT, appetite loss (4.33); for TC ≥1%, diarrhoea (4.50) and haemoptysis (19.34); and, for TC<1%, ‘other pain’ (7.25); for TC<25%, the rate favoured pbo for cough (0.51).

Results

Of 713 pts, 63% had known PD-L1 status. Similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, most PROs remained stable over time from BL across the PD-L1 subgroups (TC ≥25%, <25%, ≥1%, <1%, or unknown), with no clinically meaningful (CM) differences (≥10 points) for durvalumab compared to placebo. However, similar to the ITT population, CM improvements (decreases ≥10 points) from BL to Week 48 were observed for dysphagia and alopecia across most PD-L1 subgroups for both durvalumab (mean changes 8.1 [not CM]−20.9 and 15.5 − 26.9, respectively) and placebo (mean changes 10.4 − 19.4 and 15.8 − 31.3). Pre-specified and post hoc TTD analyses of PROs by PD-L1 subgroup were generally similar to those of the ITT population, with overlapping HR and 95% CIs. Similarly, PRO improvement rates by PD-L1 subgroup were generally similar to those of the ITT population, with overlapping OR and 95% CIs.

Conclusions

Similar to the ITT population, there were minimal between-Tx differences in PROs based on PD-L1 expression, supporting use of the PACIFIC regimen (durvalumab after cCRT) in all comers.

Conclusions

There were no CM differences in PROs between treatment arms across various PD-L1 subgroups. Results were generally consistent with those in the ITT population, suggesting that PD-L1 expression did not influence PROs in this study.

Clinical trial identification

NCT02125461

Editorial acknowledgement

Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Andrew Gannon of Cirrus Communications, an Ashfield company, and funded by AstraZeneca.

Editorial acknowledgement

Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Hashem Dbouk, PhD, of Cirrus Communications, an Ashfield company, and was funded by AstraZeneca.

Legal entity responsible for the study

AstraZeneca.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Disclosure

M.C. Garassino: Personal fees: AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, MSD. L. Paz-Ares: Advisory fees: BMS, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the conduct of the study. C. Faivre-Finn: Research funding: AstraZeneca, MSD, outside the conduct of the study. A. Spira: Consultant fees, institutional research support: AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of the study. D. Planchard: Personal fees: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Celgene, outside the conduct of the study. M. Ozguroglu: Consultant fees: Astellas; Honoraria: Janssen, outside the conduct of the study. A. Rydén, P.A. Dennis: Employment, stock: AstraZeneca. Y. Zhang, C. O’Brien: Employment, stock: AstraZeneca, outside the conduct of the study. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Collapse
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

LBA4 - Effect of post-study immunotherapy (IO) on overall survival (OS) outcome in patients with metastatic (m) NSCLC treated with first-line durvalumab (D) vs chemotherapy (CT) in the phase III MYSTIC study

Presentation Number
LBA4
Lecture Time
17:45 - 18:00
Speakers
  • N. Reinmuth (Gauting, Germany)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • N. Reinmuth (Gauting, Germany)
  • B. Cho (Seoul, Korea, Republic of)
  • K. Lee (Cheongju, Korea, Republic of)
  • A. Luft (Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation)
  • M. Ahn (Seoul, Korea, Republic of)
  • J. Schneider (Mineola, United States of America)
  • F. Shepherd (Toronto, Canada)
  • S. Geater (Hat Yai, Thailand)
  • Z. Pápai-Székely (Székesfehérvár, Hungary)
  • T. Van Ngoc (Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam)
  • M. Garassino (Milan, Italy)
  • F. Liu (Gaithersburg, United States of America)
  • D. Clemett (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
  • P. Thiyagarajah (Cambridge, United Kingdom)
  • M. Ouwens (London, United Kingdom)
  • U. Scheuring (Melbourn, United Kingdom)
  • S. Peters (Lausanne, Switzerland)
  • N. Rizvi (New York, NY, United States of America)

Abstract

Background

In MYSTIC (NCT02453282), an open-label, Phase 3 study of first-line D (anti-PD-L1) ± tremelimumab vs platinum-based CT in mNSCLC, while not statistically significant, a clinically meaningful improvement in OS was seen with D vs CT in pts with tumour cell PD-L1 expression ≥25% (PD-L1 TC ≥25%; HR 0.76 [97.54% CI 0.56–1.02], p=0.036). Here we describe subsequent treatment patterns and explore the effect of subsequent IO on the OS outcome with D vs CT.

Methods

IO/CT-naïve mNSCLC pts were randomised to D (20 mg/kg i.v. q4w until disease progression) or CT (up to 6 cycles; pemetrexed maintenance permitted). In-study crossover from CT to D was not allowed. For D vs CT, the primary endpoint was OS in pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25%. Three statistical models were employed in exploratory analyses to evaluate the effect of subsequent (post-study) IO on the OS data: the rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) method, the inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) method, and a 2-stage method.

Results

163 and 162 pts with PD-L1 TC ≥25% were randomised to D and CT, respectively. At data cut-off (04 Oct 2018), 44.8% of pts in the D arm and 58.6% of pts in the CT arm had received subsequent treatment (Table). Most pts started subsequent treatment within 2 mos of discontinuing study treatment. Among pts who received subsequent treatment, IO was administered to 10/73 (13.7%) pts in the D arm and 64/95 (67.4%) pts in the CT arm; most commonly nivolumab. Using the 2-stage method, which was the most appropriate for evaluating the effect of subsequent IO, OS was improved with D vs CT (HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51, 0.86]).

Durvalumab (n=163)Chemotherapy (n=162)
Pts who received study treatment, n (%)161 (98.8)153 (94.4)
→Pts who discontinued study treatment136 (83.4)152 (93.8)
→Pts remaining on study treatment25 (15.3)1 (0.6)
Pts who received any subsequent treatment, n (%)73 (44.8)95 (58.6)
→Immunotherapy10 (6.1)64 (39.5)
→→Nivolumab3 (1.8)50 (30.9)
→→Pembrolizumab4 (2.5)11 (6.8)
→→Atezolizumab2 (1.2)3 (1.9)
→→Durvalumab02 (1.2)
→→Tremelimumab01 (0.6)
→→Other immunotherapy1 (0.6)2 (1.2)
→Cytotoxic chemotherapy70 (42.9)58 (35.8)
→Other systemic therapies*18 (11.0)18 (11.1)

Denominators for percentages are the number of pts randomised.

Excluding immunotherapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Conclusions

In the MYSTIC study, a markedly higher proportion of pts in the CT arm than in the D arm received subsequent IO, which may have confounded the primary OS outcome. An exploratory analysis showed increased OS benefit with first-line D vs CT after adjusting for the effect of subsequent IO.

Editorial acknowledgement

Medical writing support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Samantha Holmes, PhD, of Cirrus Communications (Macclesfield, UK), an Ashfield company, and was funded by AstraZeneca.

Legal entity responsible for the study

AstraZeneca PLC.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Disclosure

N. Reinmuth: Personal fees: BMS, Roche, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Lilly, outside the conduct of the study. B.C. Cho: Grants/research support: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, ONO/BMS, MSD, Bayer; Advisor/honoraria fees: AstraZeneca, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Yuhan, BMS, MSD, Novartis; Speaker’s bureau fees: AZ, BMS, MSD, Novartis. J. Schneider: Stock/other ownership: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Celgene, Loxo; Consulting/advisory role: Takeda Oncology; Research funding: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb. F.A. Shepherd: Consultancy/advisory role: Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono; Stock ownership: Lilly, AstraZeneca; Honoraria: Lilly, AstraZeneca, BMS, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Boehringer Ingelheim; Research funding: Lilly, Pfizer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche Canada, Merrimack. S. Peters: Personal fees: AbbVie, Amgen, AZ, Bayer, Biocartis, BI, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; Non-financial support: Amgen, AZ, BI, BMS, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Illumina, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer. S.L. Geater: Research grants/funding: AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis. T. Van Ngoc: Research funding: AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis. M.C. Garassino: Personal fees: Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Otsuka Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Incyte, Inivata, Takeda, Tiziana Science, Clovis, Merck Serono, Bayer, MSD, GSK. F. Liu, D. Clemett, P. Thiyagarajah, M. Ouwens, U. Scheuring: Full-time employment: AstraZeneca. N. Rizvi: Advisory boards: AbbVie, AZ, BMS, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Neogenomics, Oncomed, Gritstone, Bellicum; Equity: Oncomed, Gritstone, Bellicum, ARMO; Royalties: PGDX (patent filed by MSKCC). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Collapse
Proffered Paper session I Proffered Paper session

Invited Discussant 83O, LBA2 and LBA4

Lecture Time
18:00 - 18:15
Speakers
  • F. Barlesi (Marseille, CEDEX 20, France)
Location
Room C, Geneva Palexpo, Geneva, Switzerland
Date
Wed, 10.04.2019
Time
16:30 - 18:15
Authors
  • F. Barlesi (Marseille, CEDEX 20, France)