Search

Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy revolutionized treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients progress due to primary or acquired resistance. Sitravatinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can shift the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment toward an immunostimulatory state. Combining sitravatinib with nivolumab (sitra + nivo) may potentially overcome initial CPI resistance. In the phase III SAPPHIRE study, patients with advanced non-oncogenic driven, nonsquamous NSCLC who initially benefited from (≥4 months on CPI without progression) and subsequently experienced disease progression on or after CPI combined with or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to sitra (100 mg once daily administered orally) + nivo (240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks administered intravenously) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks administered intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR; all assessed by blinded independent central review), and safety. A total of 577 patients included randomized: sitra + nivo, n = 284; docetaxel, n = 293 (median follow-up, 17.1 months). Sitra + nivo did not significantly improve OS versus docetaxel [median, 12.2 versus 10.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.05; P = 0.144]. The median PFS was 4.4 versus 5.4 months, respectively (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32; P = 0.452). The ORR was 15.6% for sitra + nivo and 17.2% for docetaxel (P = 0.597); CBR was 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.004); median DOR was 7.4 versus 7.1 months, respectively (P = 0.924). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 53.0% versus 66.7% of patients receiving sitra + nivo versus docetaxel, respectively. Although median OS was numerically longer with sitra + nivo, the primary endpoint was not met in patients with previously treated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The safety profiles demonstrated were consistent with previous reports. • Phase III trial of sitra + nivo compared with docetaxel in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. • The study evaluated whether CPI resistance can be overcome in patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and CPI. • The primary endpoint of improved OS with sitra + nivo versus docetaxel was not met. • The safety profiles of both regimens were consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373. FINDINGS: Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: To evaluate feasibility and safety of induction three-drugs combination chemotherapy and concurrent radio-chemotherapy in stage IIIB NSCLC. Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB NSCLC were treated with three courses of induction chemotherapy, cisplatin 50mg/m2, paclitaxel 125mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 on days 1,8 of every 21 day cycle. Patients without distant progressive disease were then treated with radiotherapy and concurrent weekly gemcitabine (250mg/m2). Toxicity and response of radio-chemotherapy treatment have been assessed. Results: Between Jan 01 and Nov 02, 46 patients were enrolled. Grade 3+ hematological and non-hematological toxicity during the induction phase were 41.3% and 13.1%, respectively. In 38 patients a Clinical Response or Stable Disease was recorded and these patients underwent to concurrent radio-chemotherapy. Grade 3+ hematological and non-hematological toxicities were 8.2% in this group. Further response was observed in 66% of patients. Overall median survival time was 17.8 months, with a 3-year survival rates of 23%. Conclusion: Three-drugs induction chemotherapy and concurrent radio-chemotherapy with weekly gemcitabine in locally advanced stage IIIB NSCLC is feasible and safe. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. • A virtual consensus on the management of EGFR-mutant NSCLC was organized by the ESMO, including 34 experts from 18 countries. • The experts compiled recommendations with supporting evidence on controversial topics about the EGFR-mutant lung cancer. • Recommendations were formulated for tissue and biomarkers analyses; early, locally advanced and metastatic disease; miscellaneous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Two phase III trials of advanced NSCLC patients were compared to examine relative efficacy and safety of differing treatment regimens. The JMDB trial investigated first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m² plus cisplatin 75 mg/m² every 21 days; maximum: 6 cycles). The PARAMOUNT phase III trial compared maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo after patients with nonsquamous NSCLC completed 4 cycles of first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin without disease progression. Methods Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods, and toxicity rates were compared between the PARAMOUNT arms and a selected homogeneous population from JMDB: 346 patients with disease and prior treatment characteristics matching the PARAMOUNT population. Results Outcomes for the PARAMOUNT placebo arm were similar to the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 5.6 versus 6.2 months, p = 0.117, HR = 1.16; median OS: 14.0 versus 14.2 months, p = 0.979, HR = 1.00). The PARAMOUNT maintenance pemetrexed group had statistically superior efficacy compared with the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 7.5 versus 6.2 months, p < 0.00001, HR = 0.66; median OS: 16.9 versus 14.2 months, p = 0.003, HR = 0.75). Patients who received pemetrexed maintenance (median 4 cycles, range 1-44) following 4 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin exhibited a higher incidence of drug-related serious adverse events compared with JMDB patients (median 6 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin) (10.6% versus 2.9%); grade 3/4 fatigue and renal toxicity were also higher in the pemetrexed arm of PARAMOUNT. Conclusions The across-trial comparison of a relevant JMDB study population with the two arms of the PARAMOUNT study supported the efficacy of the pemetrexed continuation maintenance strategy and suggested the results are not influenced by limiting the pemetrexed-cisplatin induction treatment to four cycles. Although longer exposure to pemetrexed-cisplatin or maintenance pemetrexed increased some toxicities, the overall incidence remained low, underscoring the relative safety of these treatment regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and can have devastating consequences. Preventing or delaying bone metastases may improve outcomes. Patients and methods This study evaluated whether zoledronic acid (ZOL) delayed disease progression or recurrence in patients with controlled stage IIIA/B NSCLC after first-line therapy. Patients received vitamin D and calcium supplementation and were randomized to i.v. ZOL (every 3–4 weeks) or no treatment (control). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results No significant intergroup differences were observed in PFS or overall survival (OS). Median PFS was 9.0 months with ZOL versus 11.3 months for control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and 19 control patients (9.0%) developed bone metastases. Estimated 1-year OS was 81.8% for each group. ZOL safety profile was consistent with previous clinical data, but with higher discontinuations versus control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and five control patients (2.3%) had renal adverse events. Two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. Conclusions ZOL did not significantly affect PFS or OS in stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients with controlled disease, with a trend toward worsening PFS in the longer-term follow-up. Few patients experienced bone metastases, possibly limiting the potential ZOL impact on disease course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Purpose: Gemcitabine is one of the most active drugs against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical data suggested that gemcitabine efficacy could be improved by increasing the dose or by increasing the infusion duration. This study has been designed in order to explore two different approaches of gemcitabine dose intensification in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and methods: A total of 121 chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not suitable for a platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly allocated to chemotherapy with gemcitabine 1500mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks by standard 30min intravenous infusion (arm A), or gemcitabine 10mg/m2/min for 150min on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion at fixed dose rate (arm B). Results: One hundred and seventeen patients were fully analyzed. No difference in response rate (16.1% versus 9.9%, p =0.28), median time to disease progression (4 months versus 4.5 months, p =0.34) median survival (9.8 months in both arms), and 1-year survival (42.6% versus 39.0% p =0.98) was detected in arms A and B, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Main hematological toxicities were grade 3–4 neutropenia observed in 17.9% of patients in group A and in 49.2% of individuals in group B (p =0.0002). The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 3.3% in arm A and 0% in arm B (p =0.17). Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was more frequently observed in arm B patients (9.9% versus 1.8%, p =0.057). Non-hematological toxicity was similar in both arms, and consisted in grade 1–2 gastrointestinal toxicity observed in 48.2% of patients in arm A and 41.0% in arm B. Conclusion: Intensification of standard doses or prolonged infusion schedule did not result in efficacy improvement. Gemcitabine infusion duration does not warrant further investigation in patients with advanced NSCLC. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This phase II study evaluated the response rate and tolerability of gemcitabine-oxaliplatin chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 8, followed by oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2) on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles. From February 2002 to May 2004, 60 patients were enrolled into the study in seven Italian institutions. We observed one complete response (1.7%) and 14 partial responses (23.3%), for an overall response rate of 25.0% (95% confidence interval, 14.7-37.9%). The median duration of response was 5.9 months (range 1.5-17.1 months). With a median follow-up of 6.7 months, median time to progressive disease and overall survival were 2.7 (range 1.9-3.4 months) and 7.3 months (range 7.2-8.6 months), respectively. The main grade 3-4 haematological toxicities were transient neutropenia in 11.7% and thrombocytopenia in 8.3% of the patients. Nausea/vomiting was the main grade 3-4 nonhaematological toxicity, occurring in 10.0% of the patients. Two (3.3%) patients developed grade 3 neurotoxicity. Our results show that gemcitabine-oxaliplatin chemotherapy is active and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC, deserving further study, especially for patients not eligible to receive cisplatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• NET G3 category exists also in the lung, although it is a very rare entity. • Clinical behavior of lung NET G3 mimic those of AC, rather than lung NECs. • Platinum/Etoposide resulted less active in our lung NET G3 compared with lung NECs. • In this study Everolimus and PRRT results in a relatively long mPFS in lung NET G3. Highly proliferative lung carcinoids (HPLC) have been recently reported but information about this subset remains scarce. Clinical and pathological data of 630 patients with lung carcinoids (LC) referred to Gustave Roussy Institute (GR) and European Institute of Oncology (IEO) were retrospectively reviewed to select HPLC and analyze their frequency, behavior and compare their outcome to conventional LC with Ki-67 ≤ 20 % and mitotic count (MC)≤10/2 mm2. Selection criteria were: diagnosis of LC confirmed by local pathologist, and available clinical and follow-up data. Patients with Ki-67 > 20 % and/or MC > 10/ 2 mm2 in primary or metastatic specimens were identified as HPLC. 30/514 patients (6%) met the selection criteria of HPLC. Based on primary tumor evaluation, 22/25 (88 %) were classified as atypical carcinoids (AC). Median MC was 4.5/2 mm2 (1–11) 6/2 mm2 (3–15) in primary tumors and metastasis, respectively. Median Ki-67 was respectively 23 % (15–65) and 25 % (8–60). Recurrence rate was 66 % (12/18) in HPLC and 9 % (33/352) in conventional LC. Median RFS was 24 (10-NR) months in HPLC, 288 (141-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index≤5 % and NR (148-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 6−20% (p < 001). Median OS was 203 (83-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index≤5%, 101 (79-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index 6−20 % and 53 (39-NR) months in HPLC (p = 002). Among 20 metastatic patients with HPLC, median PFS under platinum-based chemotherapy, everolimus, alkylating-based chemotherapy, FOLFOX and PRRT was 5.1 (95 % CI 0.7−9.4), 12.1(95 %CI 0.3−24), 6.8 (95 % CI 0−14.9), 10.2 (95 % CI 0.4−19.9) and 14.2 months (95 % CI 0-30) respectively. Best response was stable disease (SD) under platinum-based chemotherapy and partial response (PR) under alkylating-based chemotherapy and FOLFOX. This study confirms the existence and rarity of HPLC. Their characteristics and clinical behavior are more similar to LC rather than neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), suggesting that this entity could be managed accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Second-line therapy of stage IV SCLC is heterogeneous among European experts. • After 6 months from first-line treatment, 92 % recommend platinum re-challenge. • 3–6 months after first-line treatment no consensus was found. • In very early recurrence CAV for fit & topotecan for unfit patients was recommended. Stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with short survival and progression after first-line systemic therapy frequently occurs within months. Although topotecan is approved for second-line treatment, its efficacy is limited, and treatment heterogeneity exists. The decision-making patterns for second line treatment of 13 European medical oncologists with expertise in SCLC were analyzed. The two criteria most relevant to decision-making were the performance status and the interval of recurrence since first-line treatment. With an interval of less than 3 months since the end of first-line chemotherapy, 62 % of the experts recommended cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine (CAV) for fit patients and 54 % recommended topotecan for unfit patients. For an interval of more than 6 months, a clear consensus for a re-challenge with a platinum doublet was achieved (92 %). However, there was no consensus on the second-line therapy with an interval of 3–6 months since the end of first-line therapy. Real world practice may differ from recommendations in general guidelines and cannot always be directly derived from trial results as other factor such as habits, patient's preference, convenience or costs have to be factored in. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ⩾1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (⩾12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m2/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. Conclusion: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poster: Clinical track: Lung PO-1023: Impact of biological features in radiosurgery for Brain metastases from Non Small Cell Lung Cancer S. Durante, G. Corrao, G. Marvaso, G. Piperno, F. Colombo, S.G. Gugliandolo, E. Rondi, S. Vigorito, S. Frassoni, V. Bagnardi, C.I. Fodor, L. Spaggiari, F. De Marinis, R. Orecchia, B.A. Jereczek-Fossa. [Extracted from the article]

Abstract: The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

BACKGROUND: Findings from the phase 3 First-Line ErbituX in lung cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·871, 95% CI 0·762-0·996; p=0·044) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To define patients benefiting most from cetuximab, we studied the association of tumour EGFR expression level with clinical outcome in FLEX study patients. METHODS: We used prospectively collected tumour EGFR expression data to generate an immunohistochemistry score for FLEX study patients on a continuous scale of 0-300. We used response data to select an outcome-based discriminatory threshold immunohistochemistry score for EGFR expression of 200. Treatment outcome was analysed in patients with low (immunohistochemistry score <200) and high (>=200) tumour EGFR expression. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. We analysed patients from the FLEX intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 1121 of 1125 (99·6%) patients from the FLEX study ITT population. High EGFR expression was scored for 345 (31%) evaluable patients and low for 776 (69%) patients. For patients in the high EGFR expression group, overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 12·0 months [95% CI 10·2-15·2] vs 9·6 months [7·6-10·6]; HR 0·73, 0·58-0·93; p=0·011), with no meaningful increase in side-effects. We recorded no corresponding survival benefit for patients in the low EGFR expression group (median 9·8 months [8·9-12·2] vs 10·3 months [9·2-11·5]; HR 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·88). A treatment interaction test assessing the difference in the HRs for overall survival between the EGFR expression groups suggested a predictive value for EGFR expression (p=0·044). INTERPRETATION: High EGFR expression is a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Assessment of EGFR expression could offer a personalised treatment approach in this setting. FUNDING: Merck KGaA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sorafenib is a small-molecule multitargeted kinase inhibitor that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor β. The aim of this multicenter, randomized phase II study was to evaluate clinical activity and safety of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine in unselected untreated elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: The trial was designed to select the most promising sorafenib-containing combination in previously untreated elderly (≥70 years) stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients, with performance status of zero to two. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the following combinations: gemcitabine, 1200 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 1); or erlotinib, 150 mg/day, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 2). A selection design was applied with 1-year survival rate as the primary end point of the study, requiring 58 patients.Results: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to the study (31 patients in arm 1 and 29 patients in arm 2). After a median follow-up of 15 months, 10 patients [32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 49%] in arm 1 and 13 patients (45%, 95% CI 27% to 63%) in arm 2 were alive at 1 year. Median overall survival was 6.6 and 12.6 months in arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Observed toxic effects were consistent with the expected drug profiles.Conclusions: The combination of erlotinib and sorafenib was feasible in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate than the other arm. According to the selection design, this combination warrants further investigation in phase III trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Advances in the knowledge of tumor biology and mechanisms of oncogenesis has granted the singling out of several molecular targets for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. Among these targets, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), or HER1, has received particular attention in lung cancer treatment. Erlotinib, an orally available inhibitor of EGFR tyrosine kinase in a phase III randomized placebo-controlled trial (BR.21), has been proven to prolong survival in NSCLC patients after first or second line chemotherapy. Skin rash is the most common adverse event associated with erlotinib treatment and it is often cause of negative impact on patients’ quality of life. There is no specific treatment for this toxicity due to the lack of evidence-based data and recommendations. A panel of Italian oncologists, who had participated to clinical trials and to the Expanded Access Program for erlotinib in NSCLC treatment, and dermatologists with experience with cutaneous toxicity from EGFR inhibitors, attended a Meeting held in Rome on December 2006 to discuss skin rash from erlotinib and to provide suggestions for managing this frequent side-effect. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: A retrospective cost-minimisation analysis was conducted comparing novel chemotherapies for the treatment of chemo-naive patients with locally advanced, recurrent, and/or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Resource use information was obtained from a Phase III randomised trial investigating the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (Gem/Cis), paclitaxel/carboplatin (Pac/Carbo) and vinorelbine/cisplatin (Vin/Cis) combination regimens in 612 patients with advanced NSCLC. Since there were no statistically significant differences between the three treatments in terms of progression-free or overall survival in this trial, a cost-minimisation analysis was considered to be the appropriate type of economic evaluation. The perspective was that of the national healthcare provider in Italy. Medical resource use was obtained from the clinical trial database, from which mean cost streams were calculated for each treatment group. The mean total treatment costs per patient were €8094, €11,203 and €9320 for the Gem/Cis, Pac/Carbo and Vin/Cis regimens, respectively. Based on resource consumption in a clinical trial, Gem/Cis had the lowest overall mean costs of the three chemotherapy regimens. Gem/Cis therefore has the potential to save costs in the treatment of advanced NSCLC in Italy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Vinorelbine intravenously (i.v.) demonstrated its efficacy and tolerability in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, including elderly subjects. Since vinorelbine is now available as an oral formulation this phase II open study was designed to evaluate its activity and tolerability in advanced, elderly NSCLC patients. A total of 56 chemonaive patients were recruited from April 2001 through to March 2002. The dosage schedule, already tested in younger NSCLC patients, was 60 mg/m2once a week for three weeks (first cycle), followed by 80 mg/m2 once a week until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. A limited sampling scheme was used for performing pharmacokinetic analysis on 52 of 56 patients enrolled in the study. Treatment was well tolerated with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 11/17 patients (20/30%) and febrile neutropenia in 1 (2%). Six partial responses (11%) and 25 stable disease responses were recorded, with a disease control rate of 55%. Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [6.2–11.3]). The clinical benefit response rate was 31% on 32 evaluable patients. Pharmacokinetic profiles appeared quite similar to the historical profiles recorded following i.v. administration. Oral vinorelbine appears to be a reasonable alternative to i.v. vinorelbine, both in terms of activity and tolerability, in advanced, elderly NSCLC patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]