Search

Purpose: The phase III CheckMate 722 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02864251) evaluated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR )-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after disease progression on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)., Methods: Patients with disease progression after first- or second-generation EGFR TKI therapy (without EGFR T790M mutation) or osimertinib (with/without T790M mutation) were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (360 mg once every 3 weeks) plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone (once every 3 weeks) for four cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included 9- and 12-month PFS rates, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR)., Results: Overall, 294 patients were randomly assigned. At final analysis (median follow-up, 38.1 months), PFS was not significantly improved with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (median, 5.6 v 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.00]; P = .0528), with 9- and 12-month PFS rates of 25.9% versus 19.8%, and 21.2% versus 15.9%, respectively. Post hoc PFS subgroup analyses showed a trend favoring nivolumab plus chemotherapy in patients with tumors harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97]), one line of previous EGFR TKI (0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97]), or both (0.64 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88]). Median OS was 19.4 months with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus 15.9 months with chemotherapy, while ORR was 31.3% versus 26.7%, and median DOR was 6.7 versus 5.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 44.7% and 29.4% of patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone, respectively., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy did not significantly improve PFS versus chemotherapy in patients with EGFR- mutated metastatic NSCLC previously treated with EGFR TKIs. No new safety signals were identified.

Purpose: The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS)., Patients and Methods: In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Results: A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain., Conclusion: Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Purpose: The open-label, phase III POSEIDON study evaluated tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) and durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D + CT) versus chemotherapy alone (CT) in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC)., Methods: Patients (n = 1,013) with EGFR / ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg and platinum-based chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression and one additional tremelimumab dose; durvalumab plus chemotherapy for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until progression; or chemotherapy for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without maintenance pemetrexed; all arms). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for D + CT versus CT. Key alpha-controlled secondary end points were PFS and OS for T + D + CT versus CT., Results: PFS was significantly improved with D + CT versus CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = .0009; median, 5.5 v 4.8 months); a trend for improved OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .0758; median, 13.3 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 29.6% v 22.1%). PFS (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.86; P = .0003; median, 6.2 v 4.8 months) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92; P = .0030; median, 14.0 v 11.7 months; 24-month OS, 32.9% v 22.1%) were significantly improved with T + D + CT versus CT. Treatment-related adverse events were maximum grade 3/4 in 51.8%, 44.6%, and 44.4% of patients receiving T + D + CT, D + CT, and CT, respectively; 15.5%, 14.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events., Conclusion: D + CT significantly improved PFS versus CT. A limited course of tremelimumab added to durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved OS and PFS versus CT, without meaningful additional tolerability burden, representing a potential new option in first-line mNSCLC.

Purpose: Lorlatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib and showed robust intracranial activity in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN trial. Here, we report post hoc efficacy outcomes in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline, and present data on the incidence and management of CNS adverse events (AEs) in CROWN., Methods: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line lorlatinib (100 mg once daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice a day); no crossover between treatment arms was permitted. Tumor assessments, including CNS magnetic resonance imaging, were performed at screening and then at 8-week intervals. Regular assessments of patient-reported outcomes were conducted., Results: PFS by blinded independent central review was improved with lorlatinib versus crizotinib in patients with and without brain metastases at baseline (12-month PFS rates: 78% v 22% and 78% v 45%, respectively). Lorlatinib was associated with lower 12-month cumulative incidence of CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with (7% v 72%) and without (1% v 18%) brain metastases at baseline. In total, 35% of patients had CNS AEs with lorlatinib, most of grade 1 severity. Occurrence of CNS AEs did not result in a clinically meaningful difference in patient-reported quality of life. At analysis, 56% of CNS AEs had resolved (33% without intervention; 17% with lorlatinib dose modification), and 38% were unresolved; most required no intervention. Lorlatinib dose modification did not notably influence PFS., Conclusion: First-line lorlatinib improved PFS outcomes and reduced CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer with or without brain metastases at baseline. Half of all CNS AEs resolved without intervention or with lorlatinib dose modification.

A proportion of patients with lung cancer experience long-term clinical benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, most patients develop disease progression during treatment or after treatment discontinuation. Definitions of immune resistance are heterogeneous according to different clinical and biologic features. Primary resistance and acquired resistance, related to tumor-intrinsic and tumor-extrinsic mechanisms, are identified according to previous response patterns and timing of occurrence. The clinical resistance patterns determine differential clinical approaches. To date, several combination therapies are under development to delay or prevent the occurrence of resistance to ICIs, including the blockade of immune coinhibitory signals, the activation of those with costimulatory functions, the modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and the targeting T-cell priming. Tailoring the specific treatments with distinctive biologic resistance mechanisms would be ideal to improve the design and results of clinical trial. In this review, we reviewed the available evidence on immune resistance mechanisms, clinical definitions, and management of resistance to ICIs in lung cancer. We also reviewed data on novel strategies under investigation in this setting., Competing Interests: Antonio PassaroConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Novartis, LillySpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim Julie BrahmerHonoraria: JanssenConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Amgen, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Sanofi, Eisai¸ Turning Point TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Spectrum Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Revolution (Inst), RAPT Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)Other Relationship: Bristol Myers Squibb Scott AntoniaConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Memgen¸ Achilles Therapeutics, Amgen, Celsius Therapeutics, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Glympse Bio, RAPT Therapeutics, Samyang, Venn Therapeutics, Tarus Therapeutics¸Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Oncolytic virusTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: RAPT Therapeutics, Amgen¸ Achilles Therapeutics Tony MokEmployment: The Chinese University of Hong KongLeadership: Sanomics Limited, Hutchison China Meditech, Aurora Tele-Oncology PlatformStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanomics Limited, Hutchison China Meditech, Aurora Tele-Oncology Platform,Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Alpha Biopharma, ACEA Pharmaceutical Research, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed, Lilly, Origimed, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis GmbH, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Medscape, P. Permanyer SL, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Research to Practice, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co, Liangyihui Network Technology Co, LtdConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, ACEA Pharmaceutical Research, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint Medicines¸ CStone Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Curio Science, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Gritstone Oncology, Fishawack Facilitate, Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Lilly, Loxo, Lunit, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati Therapeutics¸ Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, Takeda, Vertex, Yuhan, Qiming Development (HK) LtdResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group (Inst), Roche (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Xcovery (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Takeda (Inst) Solange PetersHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Medscape (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Biocartis (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), Illumina (Inst), PharmaMar¸ Sanofi (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Bioinvent (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Vaccibody (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst)Research Funding: BMS (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer¸ Illumina (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Biodesix (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, Incyte, ESMOUncompensated Relationships: European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP), Annals of OncologyNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m 2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted., Results: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status., Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Since the first generation of small molecules was included in the armamentarium of treatment of solid tumors (imatinib, erlotinib, etc.), there has been an expansion of anticancer small molecules, mostly kinase inhibitors, in development. Some of these drugs may not be a real breakthrough but may be similar in pharmacologic properties and marginal benefit over previously existing agents for the same indication (i.e., me-too drugs). Other drugs, however, have been specifically designed to solve an unmet medical need. Overcoming the problems of the blood-brain barrier and brain metastasis, emerging resistance mutations (such as gatekeeper mutations), or increasing selectivity/potency can be addressed with modern drug design. In this article, we discuss the advancements in the field of drug discovery, drug development, and clinical development that have enabled solving some of these issues. The evolution of the different generations of EGFR and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors exemplifies recent advancements in pharmacology that are driving the field of anticancer small molecules as a whole.

Purpose Capturing patient-reported outcome data is important for evaluating the overall clinical benefits of new cancer therapeutics. We assessed self-reported symptoms of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in patients treated with osimertinib or chemotherapy in the AURA3 phase III trial. Patients and Methods Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 13-item Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-LC13) questionnaire on disease-specific symptoms and the EORTC 30-item Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLC-C30) on general cancer symptoms, functioning, global health status/quality of life. We assessed differences between treatments in time to deterioration of individual symptoms and odds of improvement (a deterioration or improvement was defined as a change in score from baseline of ≥ 10). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using a log-rank test stratified by ethnicity; odds ratios (ORs) were assessed using logistic regression adjusted for ethnicity. Results At baseline, the questionnaires were completed by 82% to 88% of patients, and 30% to 70% had individual key symptoms. Time to deterioration was longer with osimertinib than with chemotherapy for cough (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.05), chest pain (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.73), and dyspnea (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.58). The proportion of symptomatic patients with improvement in global health status/quality of life was higher with osimertinib (80 [37%] of 215) than with chemotherapy (23 [22%] of 105; OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.24 to 3.67; P = .007). Proportions were also higher for appetite loss (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.31 to 4.84) and fatigue (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.22). Conclusion Time to deterioration of key symptoms was longer with osimertinib than with chemotherapy, and a higher proportion of patients had improvement in global health status/quality of life, demonstrating improved patient outcomes with osimertinib.

Purpose The phase III OAM4971g study (METLung) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary end points included median progression-free survival, overall response rate, biomarker analysis, and safety. Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled (onartuzumab, n = 250; placebo, n = 249). Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P = .067), with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm (130 [52%] v 114 [46%]). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months (stratified HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .92), and overall response rate was 8.4% and 9.6% for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively. Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab; patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment (HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0% and 51.2% of patients, with serious AEs in 33.9% and 30.7%, for experimental versus control arms, respectively. Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes, with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm, compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Purpose: Phase I data (ASCEND-1) showed ceritinib efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), regardless of brain metastases status and with or without prior therapy with an inhibitor of the ALK protein. Data are presented from a phase II trial (ASCEND-2) in which ceritinib efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients who had ALK-rearranged NSCLC previously treated with at least one platinum-based chemotherapy and who had experienced progression during crizotinib treatment as their last prior therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic or neurologically stable baseline brain metastases, received oral ceritinib 750 mg/d. Whole-body and intracranial responses were investigator assessed (according to RECIST version 1.1). Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer surveys (the core-30 and the 13-item lung cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires)., Results: All 140 patients enrolled had received two or more previous treatment regimens, and all patients had received crizotinib. The median duration of exposure and the follow-up time with ceritinib were 8.8 months (range, 0.1 to 19.4 months) and 11.3 months (range, 0.1 to 18.9 months), respectively. Investigator-assessed overall response rate was 38.6% (95% CI, 30.5% to 47.2%). Secondary end points, all investigator assessed, included disease control rate (77.1%; 95% CI, 69.3% to 83.8%), time to response (median, 1.8 months; range, 1.6 to 5.6 months), duration of response (median, 9.7 months; 95% CI, 7.1 to 11.1 months), and progression-free survival (median, 5.7 months; 95% CI, 5.4 to 7.6 months). Of 100 patients with baseline brain metastases, 20 had active target lesions at baseline; investigator-assessed intracranial overall response rate was 45.0% (95% CI, 23.1% to 68.5%). The most common adverse events (majority, grade 1 or 2) for all treated patients were nausea (81.4%), diarrhea (80.0%), and vomiting (62.9%). Patient-reported outcomes showed a trend toward improved symptom burden. The global quality-of-life score was maintained during treatment., Conclusion: Consistent with its activity in ASCEND-1, ceritinib treatment provided clinically meaningful and durable responses with manageable tolerability in chemotherapy- and crizotinib-pretreated patients, including those with brain metastases., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The phase III PROCLAIM study evaluated overall survival (OS) of concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) followed by consolidation pemetrexed, versus etoposide-cisplatin and TRT followed by nonpemetrexed doublet consolidation therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles (arm A), or standard therapy with etoposide 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (arm B). The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05., Results: Enrollment was stopped early because of futility. Five hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned (301 to arm A, 297 to arm B) and 555 patients (283 in arm A, 272 in arm B) were treated. Arm A was not superior to arm B in terms of OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20; median, 26.8 v 25.0 months; P = .831). Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% v 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% v 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period., Conclusion: Pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with TRT followed by consolidation pemetrexed was not superior to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Figitumumab (CP-751,871), a fully human immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody, inhibits the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R). Our multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared figitumumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent NSCLC disease with nonadenocarcinoma histology received open-label figitumumab (20 mg/kg) plus paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve, 6 mg · min/mL) or paclitaxel and carboplatin alone once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: Of 681 randomly assigned patients, 671 received treatment. The study was closed early by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of futility and an increased incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and treatment-related deaths with figitumumab. Median OS was 8.6 months for figitumumab plus chemotherapy and 9.8 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.40; P = .06); median progression-free survival was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.4) and 4.6 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.4), respectively (HR, 1.10; P = .27); the objective response rates were 33% and 35%, respectively. The respective rates of all-causality SAEs were 66% and 51%; P < .01). Treatment-related grade 5 adverse events were also more common with figitumumab (5% v 1%; P < .01)., Conclusion: Adding figitumumab to standard chemotherapy failed to increase OS in patients with advanced nonadenocarcinoma NSCLC. Further clinical development of figitumumab is not being pursued., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS)., Patients and Methods: In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs)., Results: A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain., Conclusion: Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

First-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) is a standard treatment for patients with activating EGFR mutations. Six randomized studies have demonstrated consistent improvement in tumor response rate and progression-free survival over platinum-based combination chemotherapy. The only reason to consider EGFR TKI as second-line therapy is that none of the six comparative studies has shown improvement in overall survival, which can be explained by the high proportion of patients from the chemotherapy arm crossing over to the EGFR TKI arm on progression. It is true that patients with EGFR mutations may benefit from second-line EGFR TKI therapy, but we cannot conclude that the benefit is either equal to or inferior to first-line EGFR TKI therapy. To date, there are no direct comparative data between first- and second-line EGFR TKI in patients with activating EGFR mutations. Tumor response rates to second-line EGFR TKI have been inconsistent, which could potentially be explained by the impact of first-line chemotherapy on the abundance of tumor cells with activating EGFR mutations. However, numerous arguments, including assurance on drug exposure, improvement in quality of life, better tolerance by patients with poor performance status, and deferral of whole-brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastasis, support the general application of first-line EGFR TKI.

Purpose: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is highly sensitive to both radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy. This randomized phase III trial compared concurrent cisplatin-RT (CRT) with RT alone in patients with locoregionally advanced NPC., Patients and Methods: Patients with Ho's N2 or N3 stage or N1 stage with nodal size > or = 4 cm were randomized to receive cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) weekly up to 8 weeks concurrently with radical RT (CRT) or RT alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Three hundred fifty eligible patients were randomized. Baseline patient characteristics were comparable in both arms. There were significantly more toxicities, including mucositis, myelosuppression, and weight loss in the CRT arm. There were no treatment-related deaths in the CRT arm, and one patient died during treatment in the RT-alone arm. At a median follow-up of 2.71 years, the 2-year PFS was 76% in the CRT arm and 69% in the RT-alone arm (P =.10) with a hazards ratio of 1.367 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.00). The treatment effect had a significant covariate interaction with tumor stage, and a subgroup analysis demonstrated a highly significant difference in favor of the CRT arm in Ho's stage T3 (P =.0075) with a hazards ratio of 2.328 (95% CI, 1.26 to 4.28). For T3 stage, the time to first distant failure was statistically significantly different in favor of the CRT arm (P =.016)., Conclusion: Concurrent CRT is well tolerated in patients with advanced NPC in endemic areas. Although PFS was not significantly different between the concurrent CRT arm and the RT-alone arm in the overall comparison, PFS was significantly prolonged in patients with advanced tumor and node stages.