Search

Abstract: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that have active EGFR mutations. The importance of rapid and sensitive methods for the detection of EGFR mutations is emphasized. The aim of this study is to examine the EGFR mutational status by both direct DNA sequencing and peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-mediated real-time PCR clamping and to evaluate the correlation between the EGFR mutational status and the clinical response to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clinical specimens from 240 NSCLC patients were analyzed for EGFR mutations in exons 18, 19, 20 and 21. All clinical data and tumor specimens were obtained from 8 centers of the Korean Molecular Lung Cancer Group (KMLCG). After genomic DNA was extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue specimens, we performed PNA-mediated real-time PCR clamping and direct DNA sequencing for the detection of EGFR mutations. Of 240 tumor samples, PNA-mediated PCR clamping was used to detect genomic alterations in 83 (34.6%) samples, including 61 identified by sequencing and 22 additional samples (10 in exon 19, 9 in exon 21, and 3 in both exons); direct DNA sequencing was used to identify a total of 63 (26.3%) mutations that contained 40 deletion mutations in exon 19 (63.5%) and 18 substitution mutations (28.6%) in exon 21. PNA-mediated PCR clamping was used to identify more mutations than clinical direct sequencing, whereas clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the groups harboring activating mutations detected by each method. These data suggest that PNA-mediated real-time PCR clamping exhibits high sensitivity and is a simple procedure relative to direct DNA sequencing that is a useful screening tool for the detection of EGFR mutations in clinical settings. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: To evaluate the role of genetic polymorphisms of AhR related to the carcinogen metabolism and cell proliferation, genotypes of three AhR polymorphisms Ex1+185A>G, IVS7+33T>G and Ex10+501G>A were determined in 616 lung cancer cases and 616 lung cancer-free controls. When the effect of each AhR allele on lung cancer risk was evaluated, any AhR genotype did not show the association with lung cancer risk. However, when haplotypes were composed of three AhR SNP sites, non-smokers with GGG haplotype (adjusted OR=1.7, 95% CI, 1.06–2.71) and smokers without GGG haplotype (adjusted OR=2.5, 95% CI, 1.64–3.74) showed significantly increased risk of lung cancer compared to non-smokers without GGG haplotype. Moreover, smokers with GGG haplotype showed the highest risk (adjusted OR=3.2, 95% CI, 2.10–4.74). Particularly, the synergistic effect between AhR haplotype and smoking was more apparent in squamous cell carcinoma (adjusted OR=6.1, 95% CI, 2.53–14.68). This result suggests that haplotypes of AhR gene play an important role in the development of lung cancer and there is a synergistic interaction between AhR gene and smoking for lung cancer risk. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393 . Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. Funding Boehringer Inge [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The NSCLC patients who experienced good clinical responses to an EGFR-TKI will inevitably develop acquired resistance. A great deal of research is being carried out to discover the molecular mechanisms underlying this resistance. In comparison, few studies have been conducted to find out about the clinical characteristics of acquired resistance in the patients who had responded to an EGFR-TKI. Herein we investigated clinical characteristics of NSCLC patients who experienced acquired resistance during gefitinib therapy. Patients and methods: We reviewed NSCLC patients who showed a clinical benefit from initial gefitinib therapy. All clinical data were obtained from 11 centers of Korean Molecular Lung Cancer Group (KMLCG). The clinical manifestations of acquired resistance, time to progression (TTP), and post-progression survival (PPS) after gefitinib failure were analyzed retrospectively. Results: A total of 417 patients were recruited. Median TTP was 10.2 months (95% CI, 9.5–10.9). TTP showed a significant longer duration in female, non-smoker, and patients with adenocarcinoma. At the time of acquired resistance, 63.3% of the patients showed symptomatic deterioration. Sites of disease progression were as follows: primary lung lesion in 58.4%, previous metastasis in 38.3%, and new metastasis in 54.2%. Patients with EGFR wild type showed a tendency of higher frequency in symptomatic deterioration and newly development of CNS metastasis compared with patients with EGFR mutation. There was a significant difference in newly development of lung metastasis between patients with exon 19 deletion and those with L858R mutation (41.4% vs. 6.3%, p =0.02). PPS was 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.4–10.4). Smoking history, PS, new CNS lesion and subsequent chemotherapy were independent factors for PPS. Conclusion: This study suggests that clinical manifestations of acquired resistance may be different according to EGFR mutation status and EGFR mutation genotype. In addition, subsequent chemotherapy confers clinical benefit in terms of PPS in NSCLC patients who experienced acquired resistance after gefitinib therapy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: Afatinib—an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker—improves progression-free survival compared with pemetrexed and cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared afatinib with gemcitabine and cisplatin—a chemotherapy regimen widely used in Asia—for first-line treatment of Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. Methods: This open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was done at 36 centres in China, Thailand, and South Korea. After central testing for EGFR mutations, treatment-naive patients (stage IIIB or IV cancer [American Joint Committee on Cancer version 6], performance status 0–1) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral afatinib (40 mg per day) or intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-week schedule for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done centrally with a random number-generating system and an interactive internet and voice-response system. Randomisation was stratified by EGFR mutation (Leu858Arg, exon 19 deletions, or other; block size three). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment assignment, but the independent central imaging review group were. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01121393. Findings: 910 patients were screened and 364 were randomly assigned (242 to afatinib, 122 to gemcitabine and cisplatin). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the afatinib group (11·0 months, 95% CI 9·7–13·7) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (5·6 months, 5·1–6·7; hazard ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·20–0·39; p<0·0001). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the afatinib group were rash or acne (35 [14·6%] of 239 patients), diarrhoea (13 [5·4%]), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5·4%]), compared with neutropenia (30 [26·5%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19·5%]), and leucopenia (17 [15·0%]) in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (6·3%) patients in the afatinib group and nine (8·0%) patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Interpretation: First-line afatinib significantly improves progression-free survival with a tolerable and manageable safety profile in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung NSCLC. Afatinib should be considered as a first-line treatment option for this patient population. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]