Search

Background: In EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, dual EGFR/VEGFR inhibition compared to EGFR alone increases anti-tumor efficacy. The Phase III RELAY trial demonstrated superior PFS for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) over placebo plus erlotinib (PBO + ERL) (HR 0.591 [95% CI 0.461-0.760], p<0.0001). EGFR mutated NSCLC is less prevalent in Western versus Asian patients. This prespecified analysis evaluates efficacy and safety of RAM + ERL in EU and US patients enrolled in RELAY., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ERL + RAM (10 mg/kg IV) or PBO Q2W. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. Patients were stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs "other" [EU/US and Canada (EU/US)]). Objectives included PFS, ORR, DoR, OS, PFS2, safety and biomarker analysis., Results: EU/US subset included 113/449 (25.9%) patients (58 RAM + ERL, 55 PBO + ERL). RAM + ERL improved PFS (20.6 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.605 [95% CI: 0.362-1.010]). ORR and DCR were similar, but median DoR was longer with RAM + ERL (18.0 vs 10.1 months, HR 0.527 [95% CI: 0.296-0.939]). OS and PFS2 were immature at data cut-off (censoring rates 81.0-81.8% and 67.3-79.3%, respectively). Most commonly reported Grade ≥3 TEAE for RAM + ERL was hypertension (17 [29.8%]) and for PBO + ERL, dermatitis acneiform (5 [9.1%])., Conclusion: EU/US subset analysis showed improved efficacy outcomes for RAM + ERL and a safety profile consistent with the overall population. Ramucirumab is a safe and effective addition to standard-of-care EGFR-TKI for EGFR mutation-positive metastatic NSCLC., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease. Front-line therapy may affect responses to subsequent treatment regimens, thus influencing second-line therapy decision making. In the randomised phase 3 REVEL study, second-line ramucirumab plus docetaxel (ram+doc) versus docetaxel (doc) improved survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC. We explore efficacy, safety and quality-of-life (QoL) in REVEL based on front-line therapy., Methods: Patients were grouped by specific front-line therapy received. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, safety and QoL were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards modelling were used; frequencies reported in percentages., Results: Baseline characteristics of 1253 patients were generally well balanced between treatment arms within each front-line therapy subgroup. For patients with non-squamous disease (n=912), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane (n=227; 25%) or pemetrexed (n=449; 49%), with (n=172; 19%) or without bevacizumab. For patients with squamous disease (n=328), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus gemcitabine (n=176; 54%) or a taxane (n=69; 21%). A highly selected subgroup (n=127; 14%) received pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy. Ram+doc improved median OS and PFS versus doc across front-line therapy subgroups, as reflected by HRs ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 and 0.66 to 0.92, respectively, similar to results in the overall intention-to-treat cohort (HRs: 0.86 and 0.76, respectively). High-grade treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia and hypertension) were generally higher in ram+doc-treated patients relative to doc-treated patients regardless of front-line therapy. No clear differences in safety or QoL were seen across front-line therapy subgroups; outcomes were consistent with those reported in the overall intention-to-treat cohort., Conclusions: Results of this exploratory analysis suggest that second-line ram+doc may be effective regardless of prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane, pemetrexed, gemcitabine or bevacizumab. Overall, ram+doc is clinically beneficial across a wide range of patients with metastatic NSCLC who have progressed after various front-line therapies., Trial Registration Number: NCT01168973., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The following authors declared conflicts of interests. GCC, AHZ, ABO, PL, KW, and VJS are full-time employees and stockowners of Eli Lilly and Company. EA is a former employee and stockowner of Eli Lilly and Company. EBG has received honoraria from Dracen and EMD Serono, and his institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Genentech, Dynavax, Iovance, Mirati, and Neon. GVS has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Regeneron, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche and has served on the speaker’s bureaus of Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. MR has received honoraria for lectures from and functions in an advisory/consulting role for Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. MT has received Advisory Board honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; speaker’s honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Takeda; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Roche; and travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. HK has received reimbursement for meeting expenses and/or has functioned in an advisory/consultancy role for Eli Lilly and Company, Genesis Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received reimbursement for meeting expenses from Enorasis. J-HK serves in an advisory/consultancy role for and his institution has received grant funding for clinical trials from Eli Lilly and Company, including during the conduct of this study, and from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. OTB has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (for research funding and advisory/consultancy role), GlaxoSmithKline (for research funding), Merck (for advisory/consultancy role), Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (for research funding). MP has received honoraria for speaking, advisory and consultancy roles for Eli Lilly and Company., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Few treatments with a distinct mechanism of action are available for patients with platinum-refractory advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus either ramucirumab-a human IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist-or placebo in this patient population., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 sites in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune-checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomised (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 plus either intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or matching placebo on day 1 of repeating 21-day cycles, until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat in the first 437 randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02426125., Findings: Between July, 2015, and April, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated either ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267). Progression-free survival was prolonged significantly in patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel (median 4·07 months [95% CI 2·96-4·47] vs 2·76 months [2·60-2·96]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·757, 95% CI 0·607-0·943; p=0·0118). A blinded independent central analysis was consistent with these results. An objective response was achieved by 53 (24·5%, 95% CI 18·8-30·3) of 216 patients allocated ramucirumab and 31 (14·0%, 9·4-18·6) of 221 assigned placebo. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of causality, in either treatment group (any grade) were fatigue, alopecia, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, and nausea. These events occurred predominantly at grade 1-2 severity. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar for patients allocated ramucirumab and placebo (156 [60%] of 258 vs 163 [62%] of 265 had an adverse event), with no unexpected toxic effects. 63 (24%) of 258 patients allocated ramucirumab and 54 (20%) of 265 assigned placebo had a serious adverse event that was judged by the investigator to be related to treatment. 38 (15%) of 258 patients allocated ramucirumab and 43 (16%) of 265 assigned placebo died on treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation, of which eight (3%) and five (2%) deaths were deemed related to treatment by the investigator. Sepsis was the most common adverse event leading to death on treatment (four [2%] vs none [0%]). One fatal event of neutropenic sepsis was reported in a patient allocated ramucirumab., Interpretation: To the best of our knowledge, ramucirumab plus docetaxel is the first regimen in a phase 3 study to show superior progression-free survival over chemotherapy in patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. These data validate inhibition of VEGFR-2 signalling as a potential new therapeutic treatment option for patients with urothelial carcinoma., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The PARAMOUNT phase III trial demonstrated that pemetrexed continuation maintenance significantly reduced the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio = 0.62) and death (hazard ratio = 0.78) versus placebo in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. To further understand the survival data, descriptive subgroup analyses were undertaken., Methods: Nine hundred thirty-nine patients received induction therapy (four 21-day cycles pemetrexed 500 mg/m and cisplatin 75 mg/m), after which 539 nonprogressing patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0/1 were randomized (2:1) to maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m) cycles or placebo until disease progression., Results: Baseline characteristics of patients surviving for longer periods were comparable to patients surviving shorter periods, suggesting overall survival (OS) benefit for all subgroups of patients on maintenance therapy. An examination of type and severity of induction adverse events also found no association with survival duration. Response to induction (tumor response versus stable disease) was not determinate of pemetrexed maintenance OS outcome as assessed by waterfall plot and scattergrams and by the distribution of patients among various OS intervals. The length of the interval before beginning maintenance therapy (<7 days versus ≥7/≤30 days) also did not impact the survival results. PS, a known prognostic factor, was the only baseline characteristic associated with improved OS; however, both PS 0 and PS 1 patients exhibited a survival benefit from pemetrexed maintenance., Conclusions: In PARAMOUNT, the OS benefit was seen across all subgroups. Other than PS, no baseline or clinical parameter clearly identified a subgroup more likely to benefit. Maintenance treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis.