Search

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. METHODS: We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending >= 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (>= 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. FINDINGS: Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION: Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. FUNDING: Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) is the standard treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitising EGFR and acquired T790M mutations, progression inevitably occurs. The angiogenic pathway is implicated in EGFR TKI resistance. BOOSTER is an open-label randomised phase II trial investigating the efficacy and safety of combined osimertinib 80 mg daily and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks, versus osimertinib alone, in patients with EGFR -mutant advanced NSCLC and acquired T790M mutations after failure on previous EGFR TKI therapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Between May 2017 and February 2019, 155 patients were randomised (combination: 78; osimertinib: 77). At data cut-off of 22 February 2021, median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range (IQR): 26.5-37.6 months] and 129 (83.2%) PFS events were reported in the intention-to-treat population. There was no difference in median PFS between the combination [15.4 months; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.2-18.0 months] and osimertinib arm (12.3 months; 95% CI 6.2-17.2 months; stratified log-rank P = 0.83), [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.37]. Median OS was 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-32.1 months) in the combination arm and 24.3 months (95% CI 16.9-37.0 months) in the osimertinib arm (stratified log-rank P = 0.91), (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.56). Exploratory analysis revealed a significant interaction of smoking history with treatment for PFS (adjusted P = 0.0052) with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.30-0.90) for smokers, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.92-2.33) for never smokers. ORR was 55% in both arms and the median time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the combination than in the osimertinib arm, 8.2 months versus 10.8 months, respectively (P = 0.0074). Safety of osimertinib and bevacizumab was consistent with previous reports with grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) reported in 47% and 18% of patients on combination and osimertinib alone, respectively. No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were more common in patients on combination. • A randomised trial comparing bevacizumab plus osimertinib versus osimertinib alone in EGFR- mutant NSCLC with T790M mutations. • The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. • No difference in PFS was observed between osimertinib plus bevacizumab and osimertinib alone. • TRAEs of grade ≥3 were more common in patients on combination than osimertinib alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pembrolizumab improved survival as first- and second-line therapy compared with chemotherapy in patients with highly programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the long-term safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC and the correlation between PD-L1 expression and efficacy. Patients and methods: In the open-label phase 1b KEYNOTE-001 trial, treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumors expressed PD-L1 (=1% staining, assessed using a prototype assay) were randomly assigned to intravenous pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 (Q3W) or 2 (Q2W) weeks. Response was assessed per central RECIST v1.1 every 9 weeks in all patients who received =1 pembrolizumab dose. Using pre-treatment tumor tissue, a clinical assay quantified the percentage of tumor cells expressing PD-L1 as tumor proportion score (TPS). Results: Between 1 March 2013 and 18 September 2015, 101 patients received pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Q3W (n = 6), 10 mg/kg Q3W (n = 49), or 10 mg/kg Q2W (n = 46). Of these, 27 (26.7%) had TPS =50%, 52 (51.5%) had TPS 1%-49%, and 12 (11.9%) had TPS <1%. The objective response rate (ORR) was 27% (27/101, 95% CI 18-37) and median overall survival was 22.1 months (95% CI 17.1-27.2). In patients with PD-L1 TPS =50%, ORR, 12-month PFS, and 12-month OS were higher [14/27 (51.9%; 95% CI 32%-71%), 54%, and 85%, respectively] than the overall population [27/101 (26.7%; 95% CI 18.4%-36.5%), 35%, 71%]. Pembrolizumab was well tolerated, with only 12 (11.9%) patients experiencing grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events and no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab provides promising long-term OS benefit with a manageable safety profile for PD-L1-expressing treatment-naive advanced NSCLC, with greatest efficacy observed in patients with TPS = 50%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addition of iniparib to gemcitabine/cisplatin in a randomized phase II trial in metastatic NSCLC patients gave a comparable safety profile to gemcitabine/cisplatin alone, but did not improve the overall response rate. Marginal trends towards a survival benefit were seen with gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib. Imbalances in performance status and gender distribution may have impacted PFS and OS.Background Iniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine–cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Patients and methods Patients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2, days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2, day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature. Results One hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%–42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%–30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8–5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6–6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56–1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9–17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48–1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3–4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each). Conclusions Addition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS. Trial Registration ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]