Search

Summary Background Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Methods In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02738346 . Findings Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0−37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9–5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3–3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41–0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. Interpretation Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Funding Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Francais de Pneumo-Cancerologie).

Long-term changes in lung cancer (LC) patients are difficult to evaluate. We report results from the French KBP-2020 real-life cohort.KBP-2020 was a prospective cohort that included all patients diagnosed with LC in 2020, in nonacademic public hospital in France. Patient and tumour characteristics were described and compared with similarly designed cohorts in 2000 and 2010.In 2020, 82 centers included 8,999 patients diagnosed with LC. The proportion of women increased: 34·6% (3114/8999) compared to, 24·3% (1711/7051) and 16·0% (904/5667) in 2010 and 2000 (To our knowledge KBP cohorts have been the largest, prospective, real-world cohort studies involving LC patients conducted in worldwide. The trend found in our study shows an increase in LC in women and still a large proportion of patients diagnosed at metastatic or disseminated stage.The study was promoted by the French College of General Hospital Pulmonologists with financial support of industrials laboratories.

Background Antiangiogenic agents have improved the prognosis of non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), even though all the patients are not eligible to receive them because of counterindications linked to the tumor's characteristics or comorbidities. Much less information is available about the eligibility of patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancers (SQ-NSCLCs) to receive antivascular endothelial growth-factor (VEGF) treatments, even though such molecules are being developed for this histology. This study was undertaken to determine the percentage of advanced SQ-NSCLC patients who would be eligible to receive an antiVEGF agent as second-line systemic therapy. Methods This observational, multicenter, prospective study evaluated advanced SQ-NSCLC patients' criteria for ineligibility to receive an antiVEGF during a multidisciplinary meeting to choose their standard second-line systemic therapy. Results Among the 317 patients included, 53.6% had at least one ineligibility criterion, and ~20% had at least two, with disease extension to large vessels (39.8%), tumor cavitation (20.5%), cardiovascular disease (11%) and/or hemoptysis (7.2%) being the most frequent. Patients with an ECOG performance score of 1/2 had more cardiovascular contraindications that those with scores of 0. Conclusion Almost half of the SQ-NSCLC patients included in this study would have been eligible to receive an antiVEGF agent. The development of these molecules for these indications should be encouraged.

Introduction\ud \ud The efficacy of adding denosumab to standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients has been evaluated in two separate randomised trials (SPLENDOUR and AMGEN-249). In this pooled analysis, we will assess the combination-treatment effect in the largest available population, in order to conclude about the potential impact of denosumab in NSCLC.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Both trials included in this combined analysis, were randomised (SPLENDOUR 1:1, AMGEN-249 2:1) multi-centre trials stratified by histology, bone metastasis, geographical region and for SPLENDOUR only, ECOG PS. Cox proportional hazards models, were used to assess the treatment effect with respect to overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS; secondary endpoint). Heterogeneity between trials was assessed, and subgroup analyses were performed.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud The pooled analysis was based on 740 randomised patients (SPLENDOUR:514; AMGEN-249:226), with 407 patients in the chemotherapy-denosumab arm and 333 in the chemotherapy-alone arm.\ud \ud \ud \ud In the chemotherapy-denosumab arm, at a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 277 (68.1%) deaths were reported with median OS 9.2 months (95%CI:[8.0–10.7]), while in the chemotherapy-alone arm, with similar median follow-up of 20.3 months, 230 (69.1%) deaths with median OS 9.9 months (95%CI:[8.2–11.2]). No significant denosumab effect was found (HR = 0.98; 95%CI:[0.82–1.18]; P = 0.85).\ud \ud \ud \ud Among subgroups, interaction was found between treatment and histology subtypes (P = 0.020), with a statistically significant benefit in the squamous group (HR = 0.70; 95%CI:[0.49–0.98]; P = 0.038), from 7.6 to 9.0 months median OS.\ud \ud \ud \ud With respect to PFS, 363 (89.2%) and 298 (89.5%) events were reported in the chemotherapy-denosumab and chemotherapy-alone arms, respectively, with corresponding medians 4.8 months (95%CI:[4.4–5.3]) and 4.9 months (95%CI:[4.3–5.4]). HR for PFS was 0.97 (95%CI:[0.83–1.15]; P = 0.76), indicating that no significant denosumab benefit existed for PFS.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud In this pooled analysis, no statistically significant improvement was shown in PFS/OS with the combination of denosumab and chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC and no meaningful benefit in any of the subgroups.

10557 Background: Each decade since 2000, the French College of General Hospital Pulmonologists (CPHG) conducts a real-life nationwide prospective epidemiological, observational, multicenter study on lung cancer (LC). In 2020, the CPHG constituted the third cohort, KBP-2020-CPHG. We reported here the data on one-month and three-month mortality among general population of this cohort and compared them with 2010 cohort. Methods: Collection of all consecutive LC histologically or cytologically confirmed between 01/01 and 12/31/2020 in non-academic public hospital pulmonology or oncology units in France. A Scientific Committee controlled inclusion exhaustivity and quality in each center. Results: 82 centers collected 8,999 patients in 2020. One-month mortality was 8.8% (734/8,999) and 9.7% (680/7,051) in 2010. Three-month mortality was 21.5% (1,771/8,999) in 2020 and 23.3% (1,624/7,051) in 2010 (Table 1). According to sex, mortality at one and three months mainly affected men (525/734; 71.5% and 1,259/1,771; 71.1% respectively). Mean age at diagnosis was older than in the cohort population (67.8 y-o); respectively 69.9 and 69.8 at one and three months. At diagnosis, patients were in poorer ECOG mainly grade 2 (211/697; 30.3%) or 3 (194/697; 27.8%) for one-month and mainly grade 1 (549/1,703; 32.2%) or 2 (547/1,703; 32.1%) for three-month mortality. Among ECOG grade 3 and 4, 34.8% (194/557) and 57.1% (93/163) were dead at one month respectively; 63.5% (350/551) and 83.4% (136/163) respectively were dead at three months. According to histology, adenocarcinoma was the most common (308/734; 42%), followed by small cell lung cancer (170/734; 23.2%) at one-month; adenocarcinoma was also the most common (822/1,771; 46.4%), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (380/1771; 21.5%) at three-month mortality. Most patients who died early were stage 4, metastatic/disseminated (respectively 625/702; 89% and 1,488/1,715; 86.8% for one- and three-month mortality). In patients with COVID19 infection (n=547), mortality at one and three months was respectively 36.4% (174/478) and 46.7% (228/488). Conclusions: Early mortality has not improved over the two decades and remains high. KBP-2020-CPHG study was performed during COVID-19 pandemic, which may have generated delays in diagnosis and limited access to care and hospital. Early mortality at one and three months concerned mostly men, mean age nearly 70 y-o, adenocarcinoma, metastatic disease and frail patients. This confirms the potential value of LC screening program in a targeted population. [Table: see text]

Purpose This phase III study investigated whether continuation maintenance with gemcitabine or switch maintenance with erlotinib improves clinical outcome compared with observation in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease was controlled after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy. Patients and Methods Four hundred sixty-four patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC without tumor progression after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomly assigned to observation or to gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle) or daily erlotinib (150 mg/day) study arms. On disease progression, patients in all three arms received pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 once every 21 days) as predefined second-line therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results PFS was significantly prolonged by gemcitabine (median, 3.8 v 1.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.72; log-rank P < .001) and erlotinib (median, 2.9 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; log-rank P = .003) versus observation; this benefit was consistent across all clinical subgroups. Both maintenance strategies resulted in a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival (OS); patients who received second-line pemetrexed or with a performance status of 0 appeared to derive greater benefit. Exploratory analysis showed that magnitude of response to induction chemotherapy may affect the OS benefit as a result of gemcitabine maintenance. Maintenance gemcitabine and erlotinib were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. Conclusion Gemcitabine continuation maintenance or erlotinib switch maintenance significantly reduces disease progression in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy. Response to induction chemotherapy may affect OS only for continuation maintenance.

on behalf of the IFCT-GFPC investigators; International audience; Background: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin–gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups.Methods: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy.Conclusion: Gemcitabine-or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

International audience; CONTEXT: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and activity of weekly docetaxel monotherapy in frail elderly patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, selected on the basis of their precise age, general condition, and number of comorbid disorders (Charlson score). METHODS: Analysis of the response rate, toxicity, quality of life, median survival and 1-year survival rates after 1-3 six-week cycles of docetaxel 30mg/m(2) weekly. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled and 42 were assessable. Five patients (10%, [3.7-22.6]) had objective responses, 14 (28%, [16.9-41.6]) had stable disease, and 23 (46%, [32.6-52.8]) progressed. The main grade 3-4 toxicity was fatigue (30%). Quality of life remained stable during treatment. The median survival time was 4.3 months, and the 1-year survival rate was 21.8%. CONCLUSION: In frail elderly patients selected on the basis of their age, general condition and comorbidity, weekly docetaxel monotherapy has acceptable toxicity and does not negatively affect quality of life. In contrast, it has only moderate activity.

e18552 Background: In the last few years, new drugs and strategies have emerged in the management of lung cancer (LC). ESCAP-2011-CPHG, promoted by the French College of General Hospital Respirator...

Optimal treatment of non operable localized non small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) continues to evolve. Increasing overall survival must evolute through improving local tumoral control and eradication of probable occult metastasis. Historically, median survival varies between 7 and 10 months with a standard conventional fractionated radiotherapy (RT). Induction chemotherapy (CT) followed by RT has demonstrated its superiority over RT alone, modality which is widely utilised. Other studies revealed best results with decreasing metastatic relapses. Three independent meta-analysis confirmed benefit obtained with cisplatin based CT followed by RT that allowed to consider this association as a gold standard. Other authors demonstrated an improvement of local control and survival with concomitant RT-CT or hyperfractionated accelerated RT. Results of all of these new therapeutic modalities still poor. Implication of new CT drugs has conducted for an emergence of new studies finding to demonstrate more encouraging results. Randomized trials are conducted in this way.

Introduction Maintenance therapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT–GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. Methods Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm. Results Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1–40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62–1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64–1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61−1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61−1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms. Conclusions Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.

Background Concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CT-RT) is the recommended treatment for unresectable locally advanced stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractionated oral vinorelbine with cisplatin as induction CT followed by CT-RT. Methods Patients with stage III NSCLC received 2 induction cycles of intravenous vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m2 on day 8. Responding patients received 2 more cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and oral vinorelbine 20 mg on days 1, 3 and 5 concomitantly with radiotherapy 2 Gy daily, 5 days/week for a total of 66 Gy. Results Seventy patients, median age 61 years, were enrolled. Overall response rate (ORR) was 50.0%; Disease Control Rate was 81.42%. Median PFS was 14.58 months [95% CI, 10.97-18.75]. Median OS was 17.08 months [95% CI, 13.57-29.57]. One-year and 2-year survival rates were 68.6% [95% CI, 57.7-79.4] and 37%. One patient had a grade 3 pulmonary radiation injury and 26.5% had graded 1/2 esophagitis. Conclusion In non-operable IIIA-IIIB NSCLC, the combination oral vinorelbine (fractionated fixed dose) plus cisplatin, during concomitant CT-RT, could offer a well-tolerated option, with comparable activity to I.V. vinorelbine-based chemoradiotherapy regimens. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01839032

7574 Background: Continuous exposure of tumor cells to maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT–GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine (G) or erlotinib (E) maintenance compared to observation (O) after cisplatin-G induction chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined second-line therapy with pemetrexed (P), allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. Methods: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients (pts) with a PS of 0-1 were randomized after 4 cycles of cisplatin-G chemotherapy to O or to receive maintenance therapy with G or E until disease progression. P was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and OS were assessed from the beginning of P therapy according to randomization arm. Tumor response to P and tolerance were also analyzed. Results: Of the 464 pts randomized to either O (155), G (154) or E (155), 360 pts (78 %) received P as second-line therapy, i.e. 130 (84%), 114 (74%) and 116 (75%) in O, G and E arm, respectively. Baseline characteristics remained well balanced between arms (overall median age of 58 years, 28% female, 91% stage IV, 41% PS 0, 65/19/16%, adenocarcinoma/squamous/other, 10% non-smokers and 56% responders to induction CT). Median number of delivered P cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Response rate was 19%, 7% and 15% for non-squamous pts in O, G and E, respectively. Median PFS did not significantly differ between G and O (4.2 vs 3.9 months, HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or E and O (4.2 vs 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with G vs O (HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or E vs O (HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]), with a median of 7.5, 8.3 and 9.1 months for O, G and E, respectively. Results were similar when analysis was restricted to non-squamous pts. Grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs were similar in O (33.1%), G (31.6%) and E (25%). Conclusions: Maintenance therapy with continuation of G or switch to E does not impair the efficacy of second-line P by comparison with administration after a treatment-free interval.

Background Despite the progress seen in the last decade in diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer has still a bad prognosis and a substantial number of patients died within the weeks following diagnosis. The objective of this study was to quantify early mortality in lung cancer, to identify patients who are at high risk of early decease, and to describe their management in a real world. Methods Prospective observational study including consecutively all adult patients managed for primary lung cancer histologically or cytologically diagnosed in 2010 in the respiratory medicine department of one of the participating French general hospitals. Patients and cancer characteristics and first therapeutic strategy were collected at diagnosis. Dates of death were obtained from investigators or town council of the patient’s birth place. All fatal cases were considered regardless of the cause of the death. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the factors significantly and independently associated with death at 1 and 3 months. Results Seven thousand fifty-one patients from 104 centres were included in the study. Vital status was obtained for 6,981 patients. Respectively, 678 (9.7 %) and 1,621 (23.2 %) of the 6,981 patients with available data died within 1 and 3 months following diagnosis. As compared with the other patients, they were significantly older and frailer (based on performance status [PS] and recent weight loss) and more frequently reported stage IV tumour. Overall, 64.5 % (1 month) and 42.8 % (3 months) of patients had no cancer therapy and less than 1 % were included in a therapeutic trial. Conclusion About one in four patients died within 3 months following lung cancer diagnosis. Early mortality mainly involves frail patients with advanced cancer and is associated with lack of cancer therapy. This supports the need for early diagnosis and clinical trials in this population. Reducing early mortality to give supplementary time to patients to organise the future is a major challenge for 21st century physicians.