Search

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy is the recommended adjuvant treatment for patients with resectable, ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data on the efficacy and safety of adjuvant alectinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with resected ALK -positive NSCLC are lacking., Methods: We conducted a global, phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in which patients with completely resected, ALK -positive NSCLC of stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm), II, or IIIA (as classified according to the seventh edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral alectinib (600 mg twice daily) for 24 months or intravenous platinum-based chemotherapy in four 21-day cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival, tested hierarchically among patients with stage II or IIIA disease and then in the intention-to-treat population. Other end points included central nervous system (CNS) disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety., Results: In total, 257 patients were randomly assigned to receive alectinib (130 patients) or chemotherapy (127 patients). The percentage of patients alive and disease-free at 2 years was 93.8% in the alectinib group and 63.0% in the chemotherapy group among patients with stage II or IIIA disease (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.45; P<0.001) and 93.6% and 63.7%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43; P<0.001). Alectinib was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit with respect to CNS disease-free survival as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for CNS disease recurrence or death, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.58). Data for overall survival were immature. No unexpected safety findings were observed., Conclusions: Among patients with resected ALK -positive NSCLC of stage IB, II, or IIIA, adjuvant alectinib significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ALINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03456076.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a revolutionary drug class in cancer therapy, combining the precision of targeted therapy with the cytotoxic effects of chemotherapy. Promising activity of novel ADCs, namely Trastuzumab Deruxtecan and Patritumab Deruxtecan, has been observed in hard-to treat molecular subtypes, such as HER2-positive and heavily pretreated EGFR-mutant Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). However, therapeutic advances are expected in certain subgroups of lung cancer patients, including non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC after failure of current standard of care (e.g., immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy, chemo-antiangiogenic treatment). Trophoblastic Cell Surface Antigen 2 (TROP-2) is a surface transmembrane glycoprotein member of the epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) family. TROP-2 represents a promising therapeutic target in refractory non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC., Methodology: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical trials about TROP-2 directed ADCs in NSCLC referenced in the pubmed.gov database, Cochrane Library database and clinicaltrial.gov database., Results: First-in-humans ADCs targeting TROP-2, namely Sacituzumab Govitecan (SN-38) and Datopotamab Deruxtecan (Dxd), yielded promising activity signals in NSCLC with a manageable safety profile. Most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) of Sacituzumab Govitecan included neutropenia (28 %), diarrhea (7 %), nausea (7 %), fatigue (6 %), and febrile neutropenia (4 %). Nausea and stomatitis were the most common all grade AEs with Datopotamab Deruxtecan; dyspnea, amylase increase, hyperglycemia and lymphopenia were reported as grade ≥ 3 AEs in less than 12 % of patients., Conclusion: As more effective strategies are needed for patients with refractory non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC, the design of novel clinical trials with ADCs targeting TROP-2 is encouraged as both a monotherapy or combination strategy with existing agents (e.g., monoclonal antibodies targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors or chemotherapy)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Durvalumab significantly improves overall survival for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer and no progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). Building upon that standard of care, COAST is a phase II study of durvalumab alone or combined with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody oleclumab or anti-NKG2A monoclonal antibody monalizumab as consolidation therapy in this setting., Methods: Patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no progression after cCRT were randomly assigned 1:1:1, ≤ 42 days post-cCRT, to durvalumab alone or combined with oleclumab or monalizumab for up to 12 months, stratified by histology. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v1.1)., Results: Between January 2019 and July 2020, 189 patients were randomly assigned. At this interim analysis (data cutoff, May 17, 2021), median follow-up was 11.5 months (range, 0.4-23.4 months; all patients). Confirmed ORR was numerically higher with durvalumab plus oleclumab (30.0%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 43.2) and durvalumab plus monalizumab (35.5%; 95% CI, 23.7 to 48.7) versus durvalumab (17.9%; 95% CI, 9.6 to 29.2). Progression-free survival (PFS) was prolonged with both combinations versus durvalumab (plus oleclumab: hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.75; and plus monalizumab: hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.72), with higher 12-month PFS rates (plus oleclumab: 62.6% [95% CI, 48.1 to 74.2] and plus monalizumab: 72.7% [95% CI, 58.8 to 82.6] v durvalumab alone: 33.9% [95% CI, 21.2 to 47.1]). All-cause grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 40.7%, 27.9%, and 39.4% with durvalumab plus oleclumab, durvalumab plus monalizumab, and durvalumab, respectively., Conclusion: Both combinations increased ORR and prolonged PFS versus durvalumab alone. Safety was similar across arms with no new or significant safety signals identified with either combination. These data support their further evaluation in a phase III trial.

Background: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing., Findings: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group., Interpretation: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BCC reports research funding from Novartis, Bayer, AstraZeneca, MOGAM Institute, Dong-A ST, Champions Oncology, Janssen, Yuhan, Ono, Dizal Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Medpacto, GIInnovation, Eli Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, and Interpark Bio Convergence; royalties from Champions Oncology; and consulting fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono, Yuhan, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, Medpacto, and Blueprint Medicines; participates on a scientific advisory board for KANAPH Therapeutic, Brigebio Therapeutics, Cyrus Therapeutics, Guardant Health, and Joseah BIO; is on the Board of Directors for Interpark Bio Convergence and Gencurix; holds stock in TheraCanVac, Gencurix, Bridgebio Therapeutics, KANAPH Therapeutic, Cyrus Therapeutics, and Interpark Bio Convergence; and is the founder of DAAN Biotherapeutics. DRA reports personal payment or honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis; and institutional support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novartis. MH reports consulting or advisory fees from IntegraConnect, Coherus Biosciences, Athenex, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Mirati Therapeutics. AJP is on the Executive Board of Florida Cancer Specialists. KHL reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. BM reports consulting fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; payment or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings or travel from Merck Sharp & Dohme and AstraZeneca; and a leadership or fiduciary role in the Spanish Lung Cancer Group. SH is a consultant–advisor to AstraZeneca and Takeda. JCHY reports grants from AstraZeneca; personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringrer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche–Genentech, Takeda Oncology, and Yuhan Pharmaceuticals; and institutional fees for advisory or consulting services from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringrer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche–Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, and Johnson and Johnson. FB reports personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda; and institutional consulting fees from AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, Medimmune, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda. DHL reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CJ Healthcare, Eli Lilly, ChongKeunDang, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Ono, Pfizer, Roche, Samyang Biopharm, ST Cube, AbbVie, Takeda, Genexine, Menarini, and BC Pharma; and non-financial support from Takeda and Blueprint Medicine. LPA reports grants or contracts from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting fees from Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Sanofi, Bayer, Blueprint, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Mirati; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, Mirati and Sanofi; and a leadership or fiduciary role in Genomica and Altum Sequency. RWH reports stock and stock options with F Hoffmann-La Roche, and is an employee of Genentech. NSP is an employee of Genentech. PT reports stock and stock options with F Hoffmann-La Roche. XY is an employee of Genentech. RM is an employee of Genentech and reports stock with Genentech. MLJ reports grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Apexigen, Arcus Biosciences, Array Biopharma, Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, Atreca, BeiGene, BerGenBio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calithera Biosciences, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Curis, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, Dracen Pharmaceuticals, Dynavax, Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech–Roche, Genmab, Genocea Biosciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Harpoon, Hengrui Therapeutics, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Jounce Therapeutics, Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Lycera, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Neovia Oncology, Novartis, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, PMV Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seven and Eight Biopharmaceuticals–Birdie Biopharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Silicon Therapeutics, Stem CentRx, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tarveda, TCR2 Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, University of Michigan, and WindMIL; and institutional fees for consulting services from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Atreca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calithera Biosciences, Checkpoint Therapeutics, CytomX, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Genentech–Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Ribon Therapeutics, Sanofi, WindMIL, Achilles Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Editas Medicine, Eisai, G1 Therapeutics, Ideaya Biosciences, Lilly, and Association of Community Cancer Centers. MC, NS, and XY declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sotorasib showed anticancer activity in patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced solid tumors in a phase 1 study, and particularly promising anticancer activity was observed in a subgroup of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In a single-group, phase 2 trial, we investigated the activity of sotorasib, administered orally at a dose of 960 mg once daily, in patients with KRAS p.G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC previously treated with standard therapies. The primary end point was objective response (complete or partial response) according to independent central review. Key secondary end points included duration of response, disease control (defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease), progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Exploratory biomarkers were evaluated for their association with response to sotorasib therapy., Results: Among the 126 enrolled patients, the majority (81.0%) had previously received both platinum-based chemotherapy and inhibitors of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). According to central review, 124 patients had measurable disease at baseline and were evaluated for response. An objective response was observed in 46 patients (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6 to 46.2), including in 4 (3.2%) who had a complete response and in 42 (33.9%) who had a partial response. The median duration of response was 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.9 to could not be evaluated). Disease control occurred in 100 patients (80.6%; 95% CI, 72.6 to 87.2). The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 8.2), and the median overall survival was 12.5 months (95% CI, 10.0 to could not be evaluated). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 88 of 126 patients (69.8%), including grade 3 events in 25 patients (19.8%) and a grade 4 event in 1 (0.8%). Responses were observed in subgroups defined according to PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden, and co-occurring mutations in STK11 , KEAP1 , or TP53 ., Conclusions: In this phase 2 trial, sotorasib therapy led to a durable clinical benefit without new safety signals in patients with previously treated KRAS p.G12C-mutated NSCLC. (Funded by Amgen and the National Institutes of Health; CodeBreaK100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600883.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: No therapies for targeting KRAS mutations in cancer have been approved. The KRAS p.G12C mutation occurs in 13% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and in 1 to 3% of colorectal cancers and other cancers. Sotorasib is a small molecule that selectively and irreversibly targets KRAS G12C ., Methods: We conducted a phase 1 trial of sotorasib in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring the KRAS p.G12C mutation. Patients received sotorasib orally once daily. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points were pharmacokinetics and objective response, as assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1., Results: A total of 129 patients (59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer, and 28 with other tumors) were included in dose escalation and expansion cohorts. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 0 to 11) previous lines of anticancer therapies for metastatic disease. No dose-limiting toxic effects or treatment-related deaths were observed. A total of 73 patients (56.6%) had treatment-related adverse events; 15 patients (11.6%) had grade 3 or 4 events. In the subgroup with NSCLC, 32.2% (19 patients) had a confirmed objective response (complete or partial response) and 88.1% (52 patients) had disease control (objective response or stable disease); the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (range, 0.0+ to 14.9 [with + indicating that the value includes patient data that were censored at data cutoff]). In the subgroup with colorectal cancer, 7.1% (3 patients) had a confirmed response, and 73.8% (31 patients) had disease control; the median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (range, 0.0+ to 11.1+). Responses were also observed in patients with pancreatic, endometrial, and appendiceal cancers and melanoma., Conclusions: Sotorasib showed encouraging anticancer activity in patients with heavily pretreated advanced solid tumors harboring the KRAS p.G12C mutation. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects occurred in 11.6% of the patients. (Funded by Amgen and others; CodeBreaK100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600883.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The considerable progress made in the field of cancer treatment has led to a dramatic improvement in the prognosis of patients with cancer. However, toxicities resulting from these treatments represent a cost that can be harmful to short- and long-term outcomes. Adverse events affecting the cardiovascular system are one of the greatest challenges in the overall management of patients with cancer, as they can compromise the success of the optimal treatment against the tumor. Such adverse events are associated not only with older chemotherapy drugs such as anthracyclines but also with many targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Recognizing this concern, several American and European governing societies in oncology and cardiology have published guidelines on the cardiovascular monitoring of patients receiving potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies, as well as on the management of cardiovascular toxicities. However, the low level of evidence supporting these guidelines has led to numerous discrepancies, leaving clinicians without a consensus strategy to apply. A cardio-oncology expert panel from the French Working Group of Cardio-Oncology has undertaken an ambitious effort to analyze and harmonize the most recent American and European guidelines to propose roadmaps and decision algorithms that would be easy for clinicians to use in their daily practice. In this statement, the experts addressed the cardiovascular monitoring strategies for the cancer drugs associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular toxicities, as well as the management of such toxicities.

Background: Recurrent gene fusions, such as ROS1 fusions, are oncogenic drivers of various cancers, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Up to 36% of patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC have brain metastases at the diagnosis of advanced disease. Entrectinib is a ROS1 inhibitor that has been designed to effectively penetrate and remain in the CNS. We explored the use of entrectinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC., Methods: We did an integrated analysis of three ongoing phase 1 or 2 trials of entrectinib (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2). The efficacy-evaluable population included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who received entrectinib at a dose of at least 600 mg orally once per day, with at least 12 months' follow-up. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and previous cancer treatment (except for ROS1 inhibitors) was allowed. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and duration of response, and were evaluated by blinded independent central review. The safety-evaluable population for the safety analysis included all patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC in the three trials who received at least one dose of entrectinib (irrespective of dose or duration of follow-up). These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02097810 (STARTRK-1) and NCT02568267 (STARTRK-2), and EudraCT, 2012-000148-88 (ALKA-372-001)., Findings: Patients were enrolled in ALKA-372-001 from Oct 26, 2012, to March 27, 2018; in STARTRK-1 from Aug 7, 2014, to May 10, 2018; and in STARTRK-2 from Nov 19, 2015 (enrolment is ongoing). At the data cutoff date for this analysis (May 31, 2018), 41 (77%; 95% CI 64-88) of 53 patients in the efficacy-evaluable population had an objective response. Median follow-up was 15·5 monhts (IQR 13·4-20·2). Median duration of response was 24·6 months (95% CI 11·4-34·8). In the safety-evaluable population, 79 (59%) of 134 patients had grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events. 46 (34%) of 134 patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being weight increase (ten [8%]) and neutropenia (five [4%]). 15 (11%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events, the most common of which were nervous system disorders (four [3%]) and cardiac disorders (three [2%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred., Interpretation: Entrectinib is active with durable disease control in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, and is well tolerated with a manageable safety profile, making it amenable to long-term dosing in these patients. These data highlight the need to routinely test for ROS1 fusions to broaden therapeutic options for patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC., Funding: Ignyta/F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and BRAF V600 mutations may benefit from targeted therapies. Chemotherapy outcomes are little known in this population., Methods: The French Cooperative Thoracic Intergroup (IFCT) Biomarkers France study was a national prospective cohort study aiming to describe the molecular characteristics and clinical outcome of all consecutive NSCLC patients (N = 17,664) screened for molecular alterations. We used this data set to set up a case-control analysis. Cases had stage IV BRAF-mutated (BRAF-MT) NSCLC, whereas controls had NSCLC that was wild-type for EGFR, KRAS, HER2, BRAF, PIK3CA and ALK. Each case was matched for sex, age at diagnosis and smoking status to two controls randomly selected., Results: Overall, 83 cases with BRAF mutant disease (66.3% V600E) were matched to 166 controls. Five cases received tyrosine kinase inhibition in the first-line and 16 in the second-line. All others were treated with standard chemotherapy. There was no significant difference in first-line and second-line progression-free survival (PFS) between the groups, as well as in the disease control rate, BRAF mutation was not found to be prognostic of overall survival. We found no significant difference in outcome between the treatment types used in first-line or second-line in patients with BRAF-MT disease compared with controls nor between BRAF V600E or non-V600E compared with controls., Conclusions: BRAF mutation is not a strong prognostic factor in NSCLC. Although taxan-based therapy shows poorest PFS in first-line, no chemotherapy regimen was associated with prognosis., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The IMpower150 trial showed significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ABCP) versus the standard-of-care bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP) in chemotherapy-naive patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report the efficacy of ABCP or atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP) versus BCP in key patient subgroups., Methods: IMpower150 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 240 academic medical centres and community oncology practices across 26 countries worldwide. Patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive ABCP, ACP, or BCP every three weeks. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and investigator-assessed progression-free survival in intention-to-treat wild-type patients (patients with epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] or anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK] genetic alterations were excluded). Efficacy was assessed in key subgroups within the intention-to-treat population, including patients with EGFR mutations (both sensitising and non-sensitising; EGFR-positive) previously treated with one or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and patients with baseline liver metastases. Overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was included among secondary efficacy endpoints. Exploratory endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving an objective response in the intention-to-treat population, including EGFR-positive patients and patients with baseline liver metastases. Data are reported as per the Jan 22, 2018, data cutoff date, at which the number of coprimary prespecified overall survival events was met in the ABCP versus BCP groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02366143, and is ongoing., Findings: Between March 31, 2015, and Dec 30, 2016, 1202 patients were enrolled. 400 patients were randomly assigned to ABCP, 402 to ACP, and 400 to BCP. In EGFR-positive patients (124 of 1202), median overall survival was not estimable (NE; 95% CI 17·0-NE) with ABCP (34 of 400) and 18·7 months (95% CI 13·4-NE) with BCP (45 of 400; hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·29-1·28]). Improved overall survival with ABCP versus BCP was observed in patients with sensitising EGFR mutations (median overall survival NE [95% CI NE-NE] with ABCP [26 of 400] vs 17·5 months [95% CI 11·7-NE] with BCP [32 of 400]; HR 0·31 [95% CI 0·11-0·83]) and in the intention-to-treat population (19·8 months [17·4-24·2] vs 14·9 months [13·4-17·1]; HR 0·76 [0·63-0·93]). Improved median overall survival with ABCP versus BCP was seen in patients with baseline liver metastases (13·3 months [11·6-NE] with ABCP [52 of 400] vs 9·4 months [7·9-11·7] with BCP [57 of 400]; HR 0·52 [0·33-0·82]). Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 13·8-NE) with ACP versus 18·7 months (95% CI 13·4-NE) with BCP in EGFR-positive patients (HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·51-1·68]). No overall survival benefit was seen with ACP versus BCP in patients with sensitising EGFR mutations (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·47-1·74]), in the intention-to-treat population (HR 0·85 [0·71-1·03]), or in patients with baseline liver metastases (HR 0·87 [0·57-1·32]). In the intention-to-treat safety-evaluable population, grade 3-4 treatment-related events occurred in 223 (57%) patients in the ABCP group, in 172 (43%) in the ACP group, and in 191 (49%) in the BCP group; 11 (3%) grade 5 adverse events occurred in the ABCP group, as did four (1%) in the ACP group, and nine (2%) in the BCP group., Interpretation: Improved survival was noted for patients treated with ABCP compared with those given BCP in the intention-to-treat population, and in patients with baseline liver metastases. The overall survival signal in the subgroup of patients with EGFR sensitising mutations warrants further study., Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cancer immunotherapy may alter tumor biology such that treatment effects can extend beyond radiographic progression. In the randomized, phase III OAK study of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) versus docetaxel in advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab was observed in the overall patient population, without improvement in objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS). We examine the benefit-risk of atezolizumab treatment beyond progression (TBP)., Methods: Eight hundred fifty patients included in the OAK primary efficacy analysis were evaluated. Atezolizumab was continued until loss of clinical benefit. Docetaxel was administered until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity; no crossover to atezolizumab was allowed. ORR, PFS, post-PD OS, target lesion change, and safety were evaluated., Results: In atezolizumab-arm patients, ORR was 16% versus 14% and median PFS was 4.2 versus 2.8 months per immune-modified RECIST versus RECIST v1.1. The median post-PD OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3-14.9) in 168 atezolizumab-arm patients continuing TBP, 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.0-12.1) in 94 patients switching to nonprotocol therapy, and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-3.4) in 70 patients receiving no further therapy. Of the atezolizumab TBP patients, 7% achieved a post-progression response in target lesions and 49% had stable target lesions. Atezolizumab TBP was not associated with increased safety risks., Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the post-PD efficacy and safety data from OAK are consistent with a positive benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab TBP in patients performing well clinically at the time of PD., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although lung cancer prognosis remains poor for most patients, treatments developed in the past 2 decades have extended survival for many. For those with disease that responded to or those with stable disease after receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance regimens enable continued targeting of tumors beyond the induction phase, which is limited by toxicity. This overview summarizes completed phase 3 trials of pemetrexed continuation maintenance treatment in nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer with a focus on 2-year survival, and highlights similar ongoing trials. Some studies showed survival benefits of pemetrexed maintenance treatment versus control arms, with the potential for added benefit when combined with bevacizumab. Two-year survival rates underscore the value of maintenance therapy and suggest progress toward a clinical goal of managing non-small-cell lung cancer as a treatable chronic disease., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC in the primary (n = 850) and secondary (n = 1225) efficacy populations of the randomized phase III OAK study (respectively referred to as the intention-to-treat [ITT] 850 [ITT850] and ITT1225) at an updated data cutoff were assessed., Methods: Patients received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, or docetaxel, 75 mg/m 2 , intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the ITT population and programmed death-ligand 1-expressing subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of subsequent immunotherapy use in the docetaxel arm on the observed survival benefit with atezolizumab., Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in the updated ITT850 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.0006) and the ITT1225 (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.92, p = 0.0012) after minimum follow-up times of 26 and 21 months, respectively. Improved survival with atezolizumab was observed across programmed death-ligand 1 and histological subgroups. In the immunotherapy sensitivity analysis, the relative OS benefit with atezolizumab was slightly greater in the ITT850 (HR = 0.69) and ITT1225 (HR = 0.74) than the conventional OS estimate. Fewer patients receiving atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (14.9%) than did patients receiving docetaxel (42.4%); no grade 5 adverse events related to atezolizumab were observed., Conclusions: The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug repurposing is the use of known drugs for new indications. Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. So far, few treatments have been approved in this disease. However, its incidence is expected to increase significantly, particularly in developing countries. Consequently, drug repurposing appears as an attractive strategy for drug development in MPM, since the known pharmacology and safety profile based on previous approvals of repurposed drugs allows for faster time-to-market for patients and lower treatment cost. This is critical in low- and middle-income countries where access to expensive drugs is limited. This review assesses the published preclinical and clinical data about drug repurposing in MPM.In this review, we identified 11 therapeutic classes that could be repositioned in mesothelioma. Most of these treatments have been evaluated in vitro , half have been evaluated in vivo in animal models of MPM and only three ( i.e. valproate, thalidomide and zoledronic acid) have been investigated in clinical trials, with limited benefits so far. Efforts could be coordinated to pursue further investigations and test promising drugs identified in preclinical experiments in appropriately designed clinical trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E. Pasquier reports personal fees for consultancy from Pierre Fabre Oncology, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J. Ciccolini reports personal fees from Pierre Fabre (who commercialised a drug used in mesothelium patients), outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L. Greillier reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche and Novartis. He also reports personal fees and non-financial support from Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Andre reports personal fees and non-financial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre for drug trials. Conflict of interest: F. Barlesi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Mascaux reports board member and speakers fees from Roche and Kephren, and speakers fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca and Boerhingher Ingelheim, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)

Purpose Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, prolonged overall survival compared with docetaxel in two independent phase III studies in previously treated patients with advanced squamous (CheckMate 017; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01642004) or nonsquamous (CheckMate 057; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01673867) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report updated results, including a pooled analysis of the two studies. Methods Patients with stage IIIB/IV squamous (N = 272) or nonsquamous (N = 582) NSCLC and disease progression during or after prior platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks). Minimum follow-up for survival was 24.2 months. Results Two-year overall survival rates with nivolumab versus docetaxel were 23% (95% CI, 16% to 30%) versus 8% (95% CI, 4% to 13%) in squamous NSCLC and 29% (95% CI, 24% to 34%) versus 16% (95% CI, 12% to 20%) in nonsquamous NSCLC; relative reductions in the risk of death with nivolumab versus docetaxel remained similar to those reported in the primary analyses. Durable responses were observed with nivolumab; 10 (37%) of 27 confirmed responders with squamous NSCLC and 19 (34%) of 56 with nonsquamous NSCLC had ongoing responses after 2 years' minimum follow-up. No patient in either docetaxel group had an ongoing response. In the pooled analysis, the relative reduction in the risk of death with nivolumab versus docetaxel was 28% (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84), and rates of treatment-related adverse events were lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (any grade, 68% v 88%; grade 3 to 4, 10% v 55%). Conclusion Nivolumab provides long-term clinical benefit and a favorable tolerability profile compared with docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC.

After years of standard care prescribed to cancer patients without any selection except the primary site and histology of the tumour, the era of precision medicine has revolutionised cancer care. Personalised medicine refers to the selection of patients for specific treatment based on the presence of specific biomarkers which indicate sensitivity to corresponding targeted therapies and/or lower toxicity risk, such that patients will have the greatest chance of deriving benefit from the treatments. Here, we review personalised medicine for nonsmall cell lung cancer., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at err.ersjournals.com, (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are now a therapeutic option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. ICI, such as the PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab and the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab, have already been marketed for the treatment of pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC. Other notable PD-L1 inhibitors under development include avelumab and durvalumab. Areas covered: This article reviews literature on durvalumab development, from the preclinical data to the results of phase III clinical trials, whether published or presented at international scientific conferences. Ongoing clinical trials were also reviewed. Expert opinion: Early phase trials of durvalumab monotherapy (and in combination) have demonstrated activity in advanced NSCLC patients and it has demonstrated a good safety profile. The authors believe that durvalumab will likely play an important role in future treatment strategies for NSCLC. The PACIFIC trial assessing durvalumab after standard chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced NSCLC has already met its primary endpoint and the potential of durvalumab will be reinforced if phase III randomized studies of first-line (MYSTIC trial) and second or subsequent (ARCTIC trial) lines of therapy demonstrate superiority over the current standard of care.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) progression is common in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors have shown activity against CNS metastases, but accurate assessment of response and progression is vital. Data from two phase II studies in crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC were pooled to examine the CNS efficacy of alectinib, a CNS-active ALK inhibitor, using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) and Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG) criteria., Methods: Both studies enrolled patients aged ≥18 years who had previously received crizotinib. NP28761 was conducted in North America and NP28673 was a global study. All patients received 600 mg oral alectinib twice daily and had baseline CNS imaging. CNS response for those with baseline CNS metastases was determined by an independent review committee., Results: Baseline measurable CNS disease was identified in 50 patients by RECIST and 43 by RANO-HGG. CNS objective response rate was 64.0% by RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.2-77.1; 11 CNS complete responses [CCRs]) and 53.5% by RANO-HGG (95% CI: 37.7-68.8; eight CCRs). CNS responses were durable, with consistent estimates of median duration of 10.8 months with RECIST and 11.1 months with RANO-HGG. Of the 39 patients with measurable CNS disease by both RECIST and RANO-HGG, only three (8%) had CNS progression according to one criteria but not the other (92% concordance rate)., Conclusion: Alectinib demonstrated promising efficacy in the CNS for ALK+ NSCLC patients pretreated with crizotinib, regardless of the assessment criteria used., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiovascular toxicity has become a challenging issue during cancer therapy. Nonetheless, there is a lack of consensual guidelines for their management. We aimed to determine the current practices of oncologists regarding cardiovascular toxicity related to anthracyclines, trastuzumab and angiogenic inhibitors and to gather their opinions on the development of cardio-oncology programs., Methods: A cross-sectional declarative study was submitted to French oncologists in the form of an individual, structured questionnaire., Results: A total of 303 oncologists responded to the survey. Ninety-nine percent of oncologists prescribed cardiotoxic therapies, including anthracyclines (83%), trastuzumab (51%) and other angiogenic inhibitors (64%). The method adopted for managing cardiovascular toxicity was based on guidelines from expert oncology societies for only 35% of oncologists. None was aware of recommendations from expert cardiology societies. Prescription of pre-, peri- and post-therapy cardiovascular assessment was inconsistent and significantly less frequent for all classes of angiogenic inhibitors than for anthracyclines and trastuzumab (P<0.0001). Relative to pre-therapy assessment, post-therapy assessment was prescribed significantly less often for all cancer therapies (P<0.0001). Attitudes regarding the onset of left ventricular dysfunction were much more inconsistent when angiogenic inhibitors were involved. Additionally, the management of hypertension and QT prolongation was also inconsistent. Finally, 88% of oncologists supported projects of cardio-oncology programs development., Conclusions: Practices of oncologists are disparate in the field of cardiovascular toxicity. This finding underlines the complexity of managing many different situations and the need for distribution of formal guidelines from oncology and cardiology expert societies. The development of personalized cardio-oncology programs seems essential., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: To evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and maximum tolerated dose of roniciclib in patients with advanced malignancies, with dose expansion to evaluate clinical benefit at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D)., Methods: Two phase I dose-escalation studies evaluated two roniciclib dosing schedules: 3 days on/4 days off or 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. The expansion phase included patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), ovarian cancer, or tumour mutations involving the CDK signalling pathway., Results: Ten patients were evaluable in the 4 weeks on/2 weeks off schedule (terminated following limited tolerability) and 47 in the 3 days on/4 days off schedule dose-escalation cohorts. On the 3 days on/4 days off schedule, RP2D was 5 mg twice daily in solid tumours (n=40); undetermined in lymphoid malignancies (n=7). Common roniciclib-related adverse events included nausea (76.6%), fatigue (65.8%), diarrhoea (63.1%), and vomiting (57.7%). Roniciclib demonstrated rapid absorption and dose-proportional increase in exposure. One partial response (1.0%) was observed. In RP2D expansion cohorts, the disease control rate (DCR) was 40.9% for patients with ovarian cancer (n=25), 17.4% for patients with SCLC (n=33), and 33.3% for patients with CDK-related tumour mutations (n=6)., Conclusions: Roniciclib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and moderate DCR in 3 days on/4 days off schedule.

Background: Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227., Findings: Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group., Interpretation: To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile., Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The IFCT-0504 phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of erlotinib versus carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) as first-line treatment in 130 cases of advanced lepidic-predominant adenocarcinoma (ADC).The primary objective of the study was treatment efficacy, evaluated based on an end-point of disease control at 16 weeks.The primary objective was met, with a disease control in 35 (53%) out of 66 patients treated with CP and in 25 (39.1%) out of 64 patients treated with erlotinib. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for the total population was 3.6 months. The disease control rate did not differ between either the therapeutic arms or pathological subtypes, whereas there was a strong interaction between treatment arms and tumour pathological subtypes for PFS (p=0.009). Mucinous tumour patients treated with erlotinib exhibited an increased progression risk (hazard ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-6.5; p≤0.001). The PFS for nonmucinous tumour patients was similar in both arms. Median overall survival was 20.1 months and did not differ between therapeutic arms. These findings were not further elucidated by molecular analyses and the toxicity profiles were as expected.Our study demonstrated the dominant role of CP alongside erlotinib in the management of advanced lepidic ADC. Based on these findings, erlotinib should not be administered in first-line therapy to patients with lepidic ADC in the absence of an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation., (Copyright ©ERS 2015.)

Background: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity., Methods: In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group., Conclusions: Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

All lung cancer patients with mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or rearranged EML4-ALK eventually develop acquired resistance to treatment. Rebiopsy may give insight into the resistance mechanisms and direct further lines of treatment. Here, we evaluate the potential interest and limitations of rebiopsy. Patients with mutant EGFR or rearranged EML4-ALK non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and acquired resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors were included in a retrospective study to determine the percentage of patients who underwent rebiopsy and whether rebiopsy would have been possible, or not, in the remaining patients. In a cohort of 84 patients from 6 institutions, a biopsy had been performed in 39 cases. Biopsy samples were sufficient for histopathological or cytological examination in 35 cases (89.7 %). Complete or partial response had been observed in 84.5 % of patients whose cancer further progressed and who underwent rebiopsy. A biopsy could have been considered in 30 of the 45 remaining patients. Those with brain (N = 9) and bone (N = 2) metastases and/or with contraindications (N = 6) were excluded (two patients had both brain metastases and a contraindication). The rebiopsy target was thoracic in 62 % of cases and on distant metastases in 38 % of cases. Patients with NSCLC and an activating mutation could undergo a rebiopsy in 72 % of cases. A response to treatment does not preclude the possibility of rebiopsy at the time of progression.

Objectives: We evaluated the impact of age in a randomized phase II trial that compared three first-line drugs in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a poor performance status (PS)., Materials and Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC with a PS of 2 or 3 were enrolled into a multicenter randomized trial: arm A, gefitinib; arm B, gemcitabine; and arm C, docetaxel. We performed subgroup analyses according to age., Results: Between December 2004 and June 2007, 127 patients were enrolled. Analyses were performed between the two subgroups aged <70years (younger, n=56) and ≥70years (older, n=71). Patients mainly had adenocarcinoma (46% young vs. 51%: elderly), of which 62% vs. 75% had a PS of 2, respectively. Significantly more elderly patients were women and non-smokers, and there was a non-significant trend towards more PS-2 among the elderly. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.4months (95% CI: 1.1-1.9) for younger compared to 2.3months (95% CI: 2.1-2.9) for elderly patients. Overall survival (OS) was 2.0months (95% CI: 1.5-2.4) and 3.7months (95% CI: 2.4-4.8), respectively. Toxicity did not differ between younger and older patients. NSCLC was better controlled in elderly patients after three cycles of monotherapy compared to younger patients (p=0.034). When adjusted for stratification criteria, age was the main prognostic factor for PFS. Adjusted HRs for PFS was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.38-0.85) for the elderly compared to patients aged <70years (p=0.004)., Conclusions: Older patients had a decreased risk of progression/death compared to younger patients. Single-agent chemotherapy can be considered for patients aged ≥70years with a PS of 2., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The phase II prospective, noncomparative BRAIN study (NCT00800202) investigated efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in chemotherapy-naïve or pretreated patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and asymptomatic untreated brain metastases to provide data in this previously unexplored subgroup., Experimental Design: Patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases received first-line bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) plus carboplatin (area under the curve ×6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks (B + CP), or second-line bevacizumab plus erlotinib (150 mg/d; B + E). Six-month progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. The trial could be stopped if there were more than three (B + CP) or more than two (B + E) intracranial hemorrhages., Results: In first-line B + CP cohort (n = 67), 6-month PFS rate was 56.5% with a median PFS of 6.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.7-7.1] and median overall survival (OS) of 16.0 months. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was 62.7%: 61.2% in intracranial lesions and 64.2% in extracranial lesions. Because of low enrolment (n = 24), efficacy results for the second-line B + E cohort were exploratory only; 6-month PFS rate was 57.2%, median PFS was 6.3 months (95% CI, 3.0-8.4), median OS was 12.0 months, and ORR was 12.5%. Adverse events were comparable with previous trials of bevacizumab. One grade 1 intracranial hemorrhage occurred and resolved without sequelae., Conclusions: The BRAIN study demonstrates encouraging efficacy and acceptable safety of bevacizumab with first-line paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Over the last decade, metronomic chemotherapy has been increasingly considered as an attractive strategy for treating cancer in a variety of settings. Beside pharmaco-economic considerations making metronomics a unique opportunity in low- or middle-income countries, revisiting dosing schedules using continuous low doses of cytotoxics should theoretically permit to reduce the incidence of treatment-related toxicities, while offering unexpected novel mechanisms of actions such as antiangiogenic or immuno-stimulating properties. Consequently, a number of clinical trials sought to evaluate to what extent switching to metronomic schedules could actually impact indeed on the efficacy/toxicity balance of a variety of anticancer drugs in both adults and pediatric oncology. Vinorelbine is a vinca-alcaloïd that remains the backbone of several regimens to treat patients with metastatic breast cancer or non-small cell lung cancer. Additionally, vinorelbine is widely used to treat a variety of solid tumors in children such as rhabdomyosarcomas and acute leukemia. The recent approval of an oral formulation of vinorelbine has open the way to developing alternative metronomic schedules with this drug. Consequently, a number of clinical trials investigating on metronomic vinorelbine have been performed over the last few years, with seemingly inconsistent results to date. Of note, all the studies published thus far were based upon empirical determination of the metronomic schedule, both in terms of doses, drug-free intervals and repartition of the administrations throughout time. Because the very concept of «low, repeated doses with little or no drug-free interval» covers numerous possible combinations, determining the optimal protocol using traditional under-powered empirical design looks like an unreachable goal. In this context, mathematical modeling offers invaluable in silico tools to help determining the optimal metronomic schedule among a variety of possibilities. This review covers the latest clinical trials investigating on metronomic vinorelbine and proposes alternative strategies for developing computational decision support to make metronomics a scientific-grounded strategy, rather than an empirical practice at the bedside. In particular, mathematical simulations using an original pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics constraint models provide clues for exploring new paths in the way metronomic vinorelbine could be scheduled in patients with lung cancer.

Purpose: HER2 mutations are identified in approximately 2%of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC). There are few data available that describe the clinical course of patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 65 NSCLC, diagnosed with a HER2 in-frame insertion in exon 20. We collected clinicopathologic characteristics, patients' outcomes, and treatments., Results: HER2 mutation was identified in 65 (1.7%) of 3,800 patients tested and was almost an exclusive driver, except for one single case with a concomitant KRAS mutation. Our population presented with a median age of 60 years (range, 31 to 86 years), a high proportion of women (45 women v 20 men; 69%), and a high proportion of never-smokers (n= 34; 52.3%). All tumors were adenocarcinomas and 50% were stage IV at diagnosis. For these latter cases, 22 anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) treatments were administered after conventional chemotherapy in 16 patients. Subsequently, four patients experienced progressive disease, seven experienced disease stabilizations, and 11 experienced partial responses (overall response rate, 50%; disease control rate [DCR], 82%). Specifically, we observed a DCR of 93% for trastuzumab-based therapies (n = 15) and a DCR of 100% for afatinib (n = 3) but no response to other HER2-targeted drugs (n = 3). Progression-free survival for patients with HER2 therapies was 5.1 months. Median survival was of 89.6 and 22.9 months for early-stage and stage IV patients, respectively., Conclusion: This study, the largest to date dedicated to HER2-mutated NSCLC, reinforces the importance of screening for HER2 mutations in lung adenocarcinomas and suggests the potential efficacy of HER2-targeted drugs in this population.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Chemotherapy is included in the management of the majority of NSCLC patients either in addition to a local treatment (surgery/radiotherapy) or alone. In this setting, pemetrexed has become one of the most important partners of current chemotherapy regimens for nonsquamous NSCLC patients. Indeed, pemetrexed demonstrated a comparable efficacy to other previously available drugs in NSCLC, with however a better safety profile and an easier schedule of administration. In addition, pemetrexed demonstrated a greater efficacy in nonsquamous NSCLC that lead to an exploration of the underlying potential biological background. It is now suggested that the tumor thymidylate synthase level may act as a predictor of pemetrexed efficacy, therefore potentially providing clinicians in the future with a predictor of efficacy, which it is usually lacking with standard chemotherapies.

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens., Patients and Methods: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted., Results: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively)., Conclusion: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive tumor with poor prognosis, whose exposure to asbestos fibers is the main etiology. The incidence of MPM is anticipated to increase worldwide during the first half of this century. MPM is notoriously refractory to most treatments, and the only standard of care is cisplatin and antifolate first-line chemotherapy. The urgent need for additional therapeutic agents, in parallel with advances in the knowledge of the molecular events of oncogenesis, has resulted in the development of the so-called 'targeted agents' that specifically inhibit critical pathways in malignant cells and in their microenvironment. We carried out a comprehensive review of the literature from January 2000 to May 2010 on studies that assessed targeted agents for the systemic treatment of MPM. Although tyrosine kinase inhibitors directed against the epidermal growth factor and the platelet-derived growth factor receptors did not show significant clinical activity in phase II studies, some other targeted therapies seemed promising, notably histone deacetylase inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents. However, none of these has yet reached daily practice. That is the reason why efforts must continue in the area of clinical and translational research for MPM.

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.

BackgroundNo therapies for targeting KRAS mutations in cancer have been approved. The KRAS p.G12C mutation occurs in 13% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and in 1 to 3% of colorectal cancers and other cancers. Sotorasib is a small molecule that selectively and irreversibly targets KRASG12C.MethodsWe conducted a phase 1 trial of sotorasib in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring the KRAS p.G12C mutation. Patients received sotorasib orally once daily. The primary end point was safety. Key secondary end points were pharmacokinetics and objective response, as assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1.ResultsA total of 129 patients (59 with NSCLC, 42 with colorectal cancer, and 28 with other tumors) were included in dose escalation and expansion cohorts. Patients had received a median of 3 (range, 0 to 11) previous lines of anticancer therapies for metastatic disease. No dose-limiting toxic effects or treatment-related deaths were observed. A total of 73 patients (56.6%) had treatment-related adverse events; 15 patients (11.6%) had grade 3 or 4 events. In the subgroup with NSCLC, 32.2% (19 patients) had a confirmed objective response (complete or partial response) and 88.1% (52 patients) had disease control (objective response or stable disease); the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (range, 0.0+ to 14.9 [with + indicating that the value includes patient data that were censored at data cutoff]). In the subgroup with colorectal cancer, 7.1% (3 patients) had a confirmed response, and 73.8% (31 patients) had disease control; the median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (range, 0.0+ to 11.1+). Responses were also observed in patients with pancreatic, endometrial, and appendiceal cancers and melanoma.ConclusionsSotorasib showed encouraging anticancer activity in patients with heavily pretreated advanced solid tumors harboring the KRAS p.G12C mutation. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects occurred in 11.6% of the patients. (Funded by Amgen and others; CodeBreaK100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600883.).

Copyright of Oncologist is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Antibodies targeting the immune checkpoint molecules PD-1 or PD-L1 have demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with NSCLC who had already received platinum-based therapy.Methods: JAVELIN Lung 200 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at 173 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 31 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC and disease progression after treatment with a platinum-containing doublet, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, an estimated life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with a stratified permuted block method with variable block length, to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (≥1% vs <1% of tumour cells), which was measured with the 73-10 assay, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed when roughly 337 events (deaths) had occurred in the PD-L1-positive population. Efficacy was analysed in all PD-L1-positive patients (ie, PD-L1 expression in ≥1% of tumour cells) randomly assigned to study treatment (the primary analysis population) and then in all randomly assigned patients through a hierarchical testing procedure. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02395172. Enrolment is complete, but the trial is ongoing.Findings: Between March 24, 2015, and Jan 23, 2017, 792 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive avelumab (n=396) or docetaxel (n=396). 264 participants in the avelumab group and 265 in the docetaxel group had PD-L1-positive tumours. In patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, median overall survival did not differ significantly between the avelumab and docetaxel groups (11·4 months [95% CI 9·4-13·9] vs 10·3 months [8·5-13·0]; hazard ratio 0·90 [96% CI 0·72-1·12]; one-sided p=0·16). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 251 (64%) of 393 avelumab-treated patients and 313 (86%) of 365 docetaxel-treated patients, including grade 3-5 events in 39 (10%) and 180 (49%) patients, respectively. The most common grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were infusion-related reaction (six patients [2%]) and increased lipase (four [1%]) in the avelumab group and neutropenia (51 [14%]), febrile neutropenia (37 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil counts (36 [10%]) in the docetaxel group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (9%) patients in the avelumab group and 75 (21%) in the docetaxel group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) participants in the avelumab group, two due to interstitial lung disease, one due to acute kidney injury, and one due to a combination of autoimmune myocarditis, acute cardiac failure, and respiratory failure. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 (4%) patients in the docetaxel group, three due to pneumonia, and one each due to febrile neutropenia, septic shock, febrile neutropenia with septic shock, acute respiratory failure, cardiovascular insufficiency, renal impairment, leucopenia with mucosal inflammation and pyrexia, infection, neutropenic infection, dehydration, and unknown causes.Interpretation: Compared with docetaxel, avelumab did not improve overall survival in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1-positive NSCLC, but had a favourable safety profile.Funding: Merck and Pfizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: There are no specifically approved targeted therapies for the most common genomically defined subset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), KRAS-mutant lung cancer.Objective: To compare efficacy of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor selumetinib + docetaxel with docetaxel alone as a second-line therapy for advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational, randomized clinical trial conducted at 202 sites across 25 countries from October 2013 through January 2016. Of 3323 patients with advanced NSCLC and disease progression following first-line anticancer therapy tested for a KRAS mutation, 866 were enrolled and 510 randomized. Primary reason for exclusion was ineligibility. The data cutoff date for analysis was June 7, 2016.Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1; 254 to receive selumetinib + docetaxel and 256 to receive placebo + docetaxel.Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was investigator assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, effects on disease-related symptoms, safety, and tolerability.Results: Of 510 randomized patients (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 8.3]; women, 207 [41%]), 505 patients (99%) received treatment and completed the study (251 received selumetinib + docetaxel; 254 received placebo + docetaxel). At the time of data cutoff, 447 patients (88%) had experienced a progression event and 346 deaths (68%) had occurred. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-5.9) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 2.8 months (IQR, 1.4-5.5) with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 1.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.12]; P = .44). Median overall survival was 8.7 months (IQR, 3.6-16.8) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 7.9 months (IQR, 3.8-20.1) with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 0.9 months; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.30]; P = .64). Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + docetaxel and 13.7% with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 6.4%; odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.00-2.62]; P = .05). Median duration of response was 2.9 months (IQR, 1.7-4.8; 95% CI, 2.7-4.1) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 4.5 months (IQR, 2.3-7.3; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6) with placebo + docetaxel. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more frequent with selumetinib + docetaxel (169 adverse events [67%] for selumetinib + docetaxel vs 115 adverse events [45%] for placebo + docetaxel; difference, 22%).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with previously treated advanced KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, addition of selumetinib to docetaxel did not improve progression-free survival compared with docetaxel alone.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01933932. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Metronomic oral vinorelbine is effective in metastatic NSCLC and malignant pleural mesothelioma, but all the studies published thus far were based upon a variety of empirical and possibly suboptimal schedules, with inconsistent results. Mathematical modelling showed by simulation that a new metronomic protocol could lead to a better safety and efficacy profile.Design: This phase Ia/Ib trial was designed to confirm safety (phase Ia) and evaluate efficacy (phase Ib) of a new metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule. Patients with metastatic NSCLC or malignant pleural mesothelioma in whom standard treatments failed and who exhibited ECOG performance status 0-2 and adequate organ function will be eligible. Our mathematical PK-PD model suggested an alternative weekly D1, D2 and D4 schedule (named Vinorelbine Theoretical Protocol) with a respective dose of 60, 30 and 60 mg. Trial recruitment will be two-staged, as 12 patients are planned to participate in phase Ia to confirm safety and consolidate the calibration of the model parameters. Depending on the phase Ia results and after a favourable decision from a consultative committee, the extension phase (phase Ib) will be an efficacy study including 20 patients who will receive the Optimal Vinorelbine Theoretical Protocol. The primary endpoint is the tolerance (assessed by CTC v4.0) for the phase Ia and the objective response according to RECIST 1.1 for phase Ib. An ancillary study on circulating angiogenesis biomarkers will be a subproject of the trial.Discussion: This ongoing trial is the first to prospectively test a mathematically optimized schedule in metronomic chemotherapy. As such, this trial can be considered as a proof-of-concept study demonstrating the feasibility to run a computational-driven protocol to ensure an optimal efficacy/toxicity balance in patients with cancer.Trial Registration: EudraCT N°: 2015-000138-31. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

T-cell engagers (TCE) are cancer immunotherapies that have recently demonstrated meaningful benefit for patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors. The anticipated widespread use of T cell engagers poses implementation challenges and highlights the need for guidance to anticipate, mitigate, and manage adverse events. By mobilizing T-cells directly at the contact of tumor cells, TCE mount an obligatory and immediate anti-tumor immune response that could result in diverse reactions and adverse events. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is the most common reaction and is largely confined to the first drug administrations during step-up dosage. Cytokine release syndrome should be distinguished from infusion related reaction by clinical symptoms, timing to occurrence, pathophysiological aspects, and clinical management. Other common reactions and adverse events with TCE are immune effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS), infections, tumor flare reaction and cytopenias. The toxicity profiles of TCE and CAR-T cells have commonalities and distinctions that we sum-up in this review. As compared with CAR-T cells, TCE are responsible for less frequently severe CRS or ICANS. This review recapitulates terminology, pathophysiology, severity grading system and management of reactions and adverse events related to TCE. • Infusion related reactions and cytokine release syndromes (CRS) should be distinguished. • Cytokine release syndrome is the most common reaction with T-cell engagers (TCE). • Cytokine release syndromes is confined to first step-up dosages of T-cell engagers. • Most common toxicities with TCE are CRS, ICANS, infections, tumor flare reactions. • As compared with CAR-T cells, TCE generate less frequently severe CRS or ICANS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maintenance chemotherapy is a reasonable choice for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) not progressing after induction therapy with a platinum-based doublet. Nevertheless, there have been no studies dedicated to elderly patients. We conducted a randomised trial in patients aged 70–89 years, with advanced NSCLC (with neither EGFR mutation nor ALK rearrangement), who had not progressed after four cycles of monthly carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel in order to compare maintenance with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 d1, 22) in patients with non–squamous cell carcinoma or gemcitabine (1,150 mg/m2 d1, 8, 22) in squamous cell carcinoma to simple observation. The patients were required to have a performance status (PS) 0–2, mini-mental score >23, and creatinine clearance ≥45 mL/min. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). 632 patients were enrolled from May 2013 to October 2016. Of the 328 (52.3%) patients randomised after induction therapy, 166 patients were assigned to the observation arm, versus 162 to the switch maintenance arm, 119 of whom received pemetrexed and 43 gemcitabine. The median OS from randomisation was 14.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0–17.0) in the observation arm and 14 months (95% CI: 10.9–16.9) in the maintenance arm (p = 0.72). The median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomisation was 2.7 months (95% CI: 2.6–3.1) in the observation arm versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.8–7.1) in the maintenance arm (p < 0.001). Switch maintenance therapy significantly prolonged PFS but not OS and, thus, should not be proposed to elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. • Chemotherapy remains a backbone in lung cancer treatment. • Maintenance chemotherapy has proven beneficial in non–small cell lung carcinoma with metastatic stage. • There is a selection bias for older patients included in non-dedicated studies. • This trial shows that elderly do not derive any survival benefit with maintenance. • It illustrates that dedicated studies for elderly patients are mandatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Second-line chemotherapy regimens have demonstrated poor benefit after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). In this multicentre, open-label phase III trial, patients with advanced nsNSCLC treated with one or two prior lines, including one platinum-based doublet, were centrally randomised to receive 90 mg/m2 of paclitaxel (D1, D8, D15) plus 10 mg/kg of bevacizumab (D1, D15) every 28 days or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) every 21 days; crossover was allowed after disease progression. Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01763671. One hundred sixty six patients were randomised (paclitaxel plus bevacizumab: 111, docetaxel: 55). The median PFS was longer in patients receiving paclitaxel plus bevacizumab than in patients receveing docetaxel [5·4 months versus 3·9 months, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0·61 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·44–0·86); p = 0·005]. Objective response rates (ORRs) were 22·5% (95% CI: 14·8–30·3) and 5·5% (95% CI: 0·0–11·5) (p = 0·006), respectively. Median overall survivals were similar (adjusted HR 1·17; p = 0·50). Crossover occurred in 21 of 55 (38·2%) docetaxel-treated patients. Grade III-IV adverse events (AEs) were reported in 45·9% and 54·5% of patients treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab or docetaxel, respectively (p = NS), including neutropenia (19·3% versus 45·4%), neuropathy (8·3% versus 0·0%) and hypertension (7·3% versus 0·0%). Three patients died due to treatment-related AEs (1·8% in each group). Weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as second- or third-line improves PFS and ORR compared with docetaxel in patients with nsNSCLC, with an acceptable safety profile. These results place weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as a valid option in this population. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01763671. • Prognosis of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. • Few options beyond platinum-based chemo and immunotherapy in non-squamous (ns) NSCLC. • Phase III trial of bevacizumab-paclitaxel (wPB) or docetaxel in 2nd/3rd line nsNSCLC. • wPB improved progression-free survival and objective response rate. • Safety profile was manageable and Quality of Life was preserved with wPB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.Methods: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.Findings: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).Interpretation: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.Funding: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: BRAF mutations act as an oncogenic driver via the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF inhibition has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC. Dual MAPK pathway inhibition with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC might improve efficacy over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy based on observations in BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC.Methods: In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pretreated metastatic stage IV BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC who had documented tumour progression after at least one previous platinum-based chemotherapy and had had no more than three previous systemic anticancer therapies. Patients with previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible. Patients with brain metastases were allowed to enrol only if the lesions were asymptomatic, untreated (or stable more than 3 weeks after local therapy if treated), and measured less than 1 cm. Enrolled patients received oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) in continuous 21-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed by intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (patients who received second-line or later treatment); safety was also assessed in this population and was assessed at least once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The study is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634.Findings: Between Dec 20, 2013, and Jan 14, 2015, 59 patients from 30 centres in nine countries across North America, Europe, and Asia met eligibility criteria. Two patients who had previously been untreated due to protocol deviation were excluded; thus, 57 eligible patients were enrolled. 36 patients (63·2% [95% CI 49·3-75·6]) achieved an investigator-assessed overall response. Serious adverse events were reported in 32 (56%) of 57 patients and included pyrexia in nine (16%), anaemia in three (5%), confusional state in two (4%), decreased appetite in two (4%), haemoptysis in two (4%), hypercalcaemia in two (4%), nausea in two (4%), and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in two (4%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia in five patients (9%), hyponatraemia in four (7%), and anaemia in three (5%). Four patients died during the study from fatal adverse events judged to be unrelated to treatment (one retroperitoneal haemorrhage, one subarachnoid haemorrhage, one respiratory distress, and one from disease progression that was more severe than typical progression, as assessed by the investigator).Interpretation: Dabrafenib plus trametinib could represent a new targeted therapy with robust antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant NSCLC.Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]