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.)

Introduction: Osimertinib is a central nervous system (CNS)-active, third generation, irreversible, epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits EGFR-TKI sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations, with demonstrated efficacy in EGFR-mutated (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present the rationale and design for TARGET (NCT05526755), which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5 years of adjuvant osimertinib in patients with completely resected EGFRm stage II to IIIB NSCLC., Materials and Methods: TARGET is a phase II, multinational, open-label, single-arm study. Adults aged ≥18 years (Taiwan ≥20 years), with resected stage II to IIIB NSCLC are eligible; prior adjuvant chemotherapy is allowed. Eligible patients must have locally confirmed common (exon 19 deletion or L858R) or uncommon (G719X, L861Q, and/or S768I) EGFR-TKI sensitizing mutations, alone or in combination. Patients will receive osimertinib 80 mg once daily for 5 years or until disease recurrence, discontinuation or death. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort). Secondary endpoints include: investigator-assessed DFS at 3 and 4 years; overall survival at 3, 4, and 5 years (common EGFR mutations cohort); DFS at 3, 4, and 5 years (uncommon EGFR mutations cohort); safety and tolerability, type of recurrence and CNS metastases (both cohorts). Exploratory endpoints include: tissue/plasma concordance; analysis of circulating molecules in plasma samples using different profiling approaches to detect minimal residual disease; incidence and change over time of incidental pulmonary nodules., Results: TARGET is currently recruiting, and completion is expected in 2029., Competing Interests: Disclosure RAS reports research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and advisory board fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, J INTS BIO, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. FDM reports consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp, & Dohme Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, and Takeda. JYH reports receiving honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Yuhan, consultation fees from ABION, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen, AstraZeneca, reports grants from Roche, Takeda, ONO, and an advisory board fee from AstraZeneca. JCMH reports speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Takeda, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis. EM reports employment for AstraZeneca and PHASTAR. LS and MS report employment and stock ownership with AstraZeneca. SP reports paid expert testimony for Merck Serono and Roche, consultation fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, EQRx, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics, research funding (to institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trizel, Turning Point Therapeutics and member of the board of directors for Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The phase III ADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02511106) primary analysis demonstrated a clinically significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with adjuvant osimertinib versus placebo in EGFR-mutated stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after complete tumor resection (DFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.20 [99.12% CI, 0.14 to 0.30]; P < .001). We report an updated exploratory analysis of final DFS data., Methods: Overall, 682 patients with stage IB-IIIA (American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control, seventh edition) EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion/L858R) NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by stage, mutational status, and race) to receive osimertinib 80 mg once-daily or placebo for 3 years. The primary end point was DFS by investigator assessment in stage II-IIIA disease analyzed by stratified log-rank test; following early reporting of statistical significance in DFS, no further formal statistical testing was planned. Secondary end points included DFS in stage IB-IIIA, overall survival, and safety. Patterns of recurrence and CNS DFS were prespecified exploratory end points., Results: At data cutoff (April 11, 2022), in stage II-IIIA disease, median follow-up was 44.2 months (osimertinib) and 19.6 months (placebo); the DFS HR was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.30); 4-year DFS rate was 70% (osimertinib) and 29% (placebo). In the overall population, DFS HR was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.34); 4-year DFS rate was 73% (osimertinib) and 38% (placebo). Fewer patients treated with osimertinib had local/regional and distant recurrence versus placebo. CNS DFS HR in stage II-IIIA was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.42). The long-term safety profile of osimertinib was consistent with the primary analysis., Conclusion: These updated data demonstrate prolonged DFS benefit over placebo, reduced risk of local and distant recurrence, improved CNS DFS, and a consistent safety profile, supporting the efficacy of adjuvant osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Background: Lorlatinib, a third-generation inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has antitumor activity in previously treated patients with ALK -positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy of lorlatinib, as compared with that of crizotinib, as first-line treatment for advanced ALK -positive NSCLC is unclear., Methods: We conducted a global, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in 296 patients with advanced ALK -positive NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included independently assessed objective response and intracranial response. An interim analysis of efficacy was planned after approximately 133 of 177 (75%) expected events of disease progression or death had occurred., Results: The percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84) in the lorlatinib group and 39% (95% CI, 30 to 48) in the crizotinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41; P<0.001). An objective response occurred in 76% (95% CI, 68 to 83) of the patients in the lorlatinib group and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 66) of those in the crizotinib group; among those with measurable brain metastases, 82% (95% CI, 57 to 96) and 23% (95% CI, 5 to 54), respectively, had an intracranial response, and 71% of the patients who received lorlatinib had an intracranial complete response. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hyperlipidemia, edema, increased weight, peripheral neuropathy, and cognitive effects. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly altered lipid levels) than crizotinib (in 72% vs. 56%). Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events occurred in 7% and 9% of the patients, respectively., Conclusions: In an interim analysis of results among patients with previously untreated advanced ALK -positive NSCLC, those who received lorlatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival and a higher frequency of intracranial response than those who received crizotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher with lorlatinib than with crizotinib because of the frequent occurrence of altered lipid levels. (Funded by Pfizer; CROWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03052608.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Osimertinib is standard-of-care therapy for previously untreated epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy and safety of osimertinib as adjuvant therapy are unknown., Methods: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with completely resected EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo for 3 years. The primary end point was disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease (according to investigator assessment). The secondary end points included disease-free survival in the overall population of patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety., Results: A total of 682 patients underwent randomization (339 to the osimertinib group and 343 to the placebo group). At 24 months, 90% of the patients with stage II to IIIA disease in the osimertinib group (95% confidence interval [CI], 84 to 93) and 44% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 37 to 51) were alive and disease-free (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.17; 99.06% CI, 0.11 to 0.26; P<0.001). In the overall population, 89% of the patients in the osimertinib group (95% CI, 85 to 92) and 52% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 46 to 58) were alive and disease-free at 24 months (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.20; 99.12% CI, 0.14 to 0.30; P<0.001). At 24 months, 98% of the patients in the osimertinib group (95% CI, 95 to 99) and 85% of those in the placebo group (95% CI, 80 to 89) were alive and did not have central nervous system disease (overall hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.33). Overall survival data were immature; 29 patients died (9 in the osimertinib group and 20 in the placebo group). No new safety concerns were noted., Conclusions: In patients with stage IB to IIIA EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received osimertinib than among those who received placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of the anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody atezolizumab, as compared with those of platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 expression are not known., Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial involving patients with metastatic nonsquamous or squamous NSCLC who had not previously received chemotherapy and who had PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumor cells or at least 1% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells as assessed by the SP142 immunohistochemical assay. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive atezolizumab or chemotherapy. Overall survival (primary end point) was tested hierarchically according to PD-L1 expression status among patients in the intention-to-treat population whose tumors were wild-type with respect to EGFR mutations or ALK translocations. Within the population with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors, overall survival and progression-free survival were also prospectively assessed in subgroups defined according to findings on two PD-L1 assays as well as by blood-based tumor mutational burden., Results: Overall, 572 patients were enrolled. In the subgroup of patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type tumors who had the highest expression of PD-L1 (205 patients), the median overall survival was longer by 7.1 months in the atezolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (20.2 months vs. 13.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; P = 0.01). Among all the patients who could be evaluated for safety, adverse events occurred in 90.2% of the patients in the atezolizumab group and in 94.7% of those in the chemotherapy group; grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 30.1% and 52.5% of the patients in the respective groups. Overall and progression-free survival favored atezolizumab in the subgroups with a high blood-based tumor mutational burden., Conclusions: Atezolizumab treatment resulted in significantly longer overall survival than platinum-based chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, regardless of histologic type. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower110 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409342.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Molecular characterization of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), defined predictive and druggable mutations that greatly modified patient prognoses. The most frequent driver mutations detected in NSCLC are epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, accounting for approximately 90% of exon 19 deletions and exon 21 point mutations. The other EGFR mutations are classified as uncommon or nonclassical and include exon 18 point mutations, exon 20 insertions, and combined mutations, which present different sensitivity to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting., Patients and Methods: We collected data from EGFR TKI-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC, harboring EGFR exon 18 mutations and EGFR combined mutations treated with first- or second-generation EGFR TKIs. Efficacy end points were evaluated considering the activity of EGFR TKIs in exon 18 versus double-mutation EGFR groups., Results: Eighty-eight patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations were evaluated in our analysis, and subdivided into 2 group: complex mutations (cohort A = 46 patients) and double mutations in exon 18 (cohort B = 42 patients). The results showed a median progression-free survival of 8.3 versus 12.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .06) and a median overall survival of 17.0 versus 31.0 months (HR, 0.62, P = .04) favoring the EGFR combination group. Within the combination group, no detrimental effect was associated with exon 20 mutations., Conclusion: Our study confirmed that EGFR exon 18 and combination mutations might be considered potentially sensitive uncommon mutations, with a similar survival compared with the well known common EGFR mutations. Comparative analysis showed that patients with complex mutations achieved longer survival compared with the exon 18 group, without correlation with the presence of exon 20 mutations., (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.)

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261)., Patients and Methods: Patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Of 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39-68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81-98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1-15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53-88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population., Conclusions: Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously., Clinicaltrials.gov Number: NCT01802632; NCT02094261.

Purpose: Dysregulated MET signalling is implicated in oncogenesis. The safety and preliminary efficacy of a highly selective MET kinase inhibitor (SAR125844) was investigated in patients with advanced solid tumours and MET dysregulation., Methods: This was a phase I dose-escalation (3 + 3 design [50-740 mg/m 2 ]) and dose-expansion study. In the dose escalation, patients had high total MET (t-MET) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or MET amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. In the dose expansion, patients had MET amplification (including a subset of patients with non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]) or phosphorylated-MET (p-MET) expression (IHC). Objectives were determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of once-weekly intravenous SAR125844 based on dose-limiting toxicities; safety and pharmacokinetic profile; preliminary efficacy of SAR125844 MTD in the expansion cohort., Results: In total, 72 patients were enrolled: dose escalation, N = 33; dose expansion, N = 39; 570 mg/m 2 was established as the MTD. Most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were asthenia/fatigue (58.3%), nausea (31.9%), and abdominal pain, constipation, and dyspnea (27.8% for each); 58.3% of patients reported grade 3 AEs (19.4% were treatment related). Of the 29 evaluable patients with MET amplification treated at 570 mg/m 2 , five achieved a partial response, including four of 22 with NSCLC; 17 patients had stable disease. No response was observed in patients with high p-MET solid tumours. There was no correlation between tumour response and t-MET status or MET gene copy number., Conclusion: The MTD of once-weekly SAR125844 was 570 mg/m 2 ; SAR125844 was well tolerated, with significant antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified NSCLC., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01391533., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: The management of elderly patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC includes several strategies., Patients and Methods: Patients (≥70 years) were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,200 mg/m 2 i.v. on days 1-8) (arm A) or bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v.) and cisplatin (60 mg/m 2 i.v.) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 i.v. on days 1-8) (arm B), to independently evaluate treatments. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate at 6 months; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety profiles., Results: At 6 months, 5 (11.6%) patients in arm A and 5 patients (12.5%) in arm B were found to be progression-free. Median PFS was 4.8 months in arm A and 6.5 months in arm B, respectively., Conclusion: In our experience, combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy had encouraging anti-tumor efficacy as first-line therapy in elderly patients with non-squamous NSCLC., (Copyright© 2017, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

The identification of EGFR mutations and their respectively tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), changed dramatically treatment and survival of patients with EGFR-positive lung cancer. Nowadays, different EGFR TKIs as afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib are approved worldwide for the treatment of NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations, in particular exon 19 deletions or exon 21 (Leu858Arg) substitution EGFR mutations. In first-line setting, when comparing with platinum-based chemotherapy, these target drugs improves progression-free survival, response rate and quality of life. Unfortunately, the development of different mechanism of resistance, limits the long term efficacy of these agents. The most clear mechanism of resistance is the development of EGFR Thr790Met mutation. Against this new target, different third-generation EGFR-mutant-selective TKIs, such as osimertinib, rociletinib and olmutinib, showed a great activity. In this review, we summarize the scientific evidences about biology, evaluation and treatment on NSCLC with EGFR T790M mutation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Chemo-radiotherapy is standard of care in the treatment of unresectable stage III NSCLC. We aimed at assessing whether the addition of concurrent taxane-chemotherapy to thoracic irradiation following chemotherapy was able to improve treatment outcome., Material and Methods: In PITCAP trial, patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC were randomized to receive 2 cycles of platinum-paclitaxel followed by 60-61.2Gy thoracic irradiation (control arm) or by same radiotherapy with concomitant weekly paclitaxel (experimental arm). A literature-based meta-analysis including all studies with same design was also performed., Results: At the time of the second interim analysis, when 151 patients were randomized, accrual was terminated. With a median follow-up of 6.1 years, median survival was 13.2 vs 15.1 months, with a 3-year survival rate of 19.5 vs 21.2% in the control and experimental arm, respectively (HR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.69-1.36; p=0.845). Treatment toxicity was manageable in both arms. The meta-analysis of 5 trials (n=866) confirmed the lack of a meaningful effect on 1-year overall survival of a taxane added concurrently to radiotherapy., Conclusions: These results do not support a meaningful survival benefit with the addition of single agent taxane given concurrently to radiotherapy after platinum-based induction in locally advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Although patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and an activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation benefit from the use of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), most of them progress within 12 months from treatment start due to acquired resistance. In clinical practice, many physicians frequently offer these patients retreatment with EGFR-TKIs after a chemotherapy break, based on small or retrospective studies., Materials and Methods: A phase II trial was conducted in patients with stage III/IV NSCLC, to assess the efficacy, safety and impact on quality of life (QoL) and disease-related symptoms of gefitinib rechallenge. Eligible patients had initially responded to first-line gefitinib and progressed after second-line chemotherapy., Results: Of 61 enrolled patients, 73.8% were female, 100% had EGFR-mutated adenocarcinoma and 67.2% were never-smokers. Thirty-two (52.5%) patients obtained a clinical benefit, with 3 (4.9%) achieving a partial response and 29 (47.5%) having stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 2.8 months, overall survival 10.2 months and duration of gefitinib treatment 3.6 months. The most common all grade-adverse events were diarrhea (27.6%), nausea and/or vomiting (20.3%), rash (14.7%) and dyspnea (10.3%); no new toxicities were apparent., Conclusion: Findings from this study indicate that gefitinib rechallenge offers modest benefit and may be taken into consideration only for patients for whom no other treatment option exists., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer worldwide that currently has only a few available treatment options in patients with no driver mutations. The therapeutic options for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress after first-line chemotherapy have been limited from a long time. Docetaxel has remained a cornerstone of second-line treatment for more than 20 years, but it is associated with an unfavorable safety profile. Recently, the results from immunotherapy treatment with anti-PD1 and PD-L1 inhibitors has changed our current knowledge base and increased therapeutic options for patients with NSCLC in the second-line setting. The results of 2 randomized phase III trials assessing nivolumab in lung cancer, Check-Mate-017 and Check-Mate-057, have deeply changed our current clinical practice and raised several discussion points. This paper explores the recent findings about nivolumab for the treatment of NSCLC in the second-line setting by analyzing recent trial findings and discussing their implications in clinical practice and future directions. The paper also summarizes the conclusions from an International Experts Panel Meeting of the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes., Results: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent., Conclusion: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy., Trial Registration Number: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov)., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Introduction: Sorafenib monotherapy has shown benefits in phase II trials as third-/fourth-line treatment in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: The phase III, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled Monotherapy admInistration of Sorafenib in patientS wIth nOn-small-cell luNg cancer (MISSION) trial randomized patients with advanced relapsed/refractory NSCLC, following two or three prior treatment regimens, to sorafenib 400 mg twice a day (n = 350) or matching placebo (n = 353) plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression. Epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutation status was analyzed in archival tumor and/or circulating tumor DNA from blood samples obtained during screening., Results: Median OS was similar in the sorafenib and placebo groups (8.2 versus 8.3 mo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.17; p = 0.47). Median PFS (2.8 versus 1.4 mo; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.72; p < 0.0001), and time to progression (2.9 versus 1.4 mo; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.65; p < 0.0001) were significantly greater with sorafenib than with placebo. Among the 89 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, OS (13.9 versus 6.5 mo; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; p = 0.002) and PFS (2.7 versus 1.4 mo; HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.46; p < 0.001) were significantly higher with sorafenib than placebo. PFS was significantly longer with sorafenib than placebo in patients with either wild-type or mutated KRAS, but OS was similar. Common drug-related adverse events were rash/desquamation, diarrhea, and fatigue, consistent with the safety profile of sorafenib., Conclusions: Third-/fourth-line sorafenib therapy did not significantly increase OS in patients with relapsed/refractory NSCLC, despite significantly increasing PFS., (Copyright © 2015 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of afatinib in EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC treated with afatinib after failure of chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs., Results: A total of 96 individuals were included in the study. According to EGFR status, most patients (n = 63; 65.6%) harbored a deletion in exon 19, and de novo T790M mutation was detected in 2 cases (T790M and exon 19). Twenty-four (25%) patients underwent repeated biopsy immediately before starting afatinib and secondary T790M was detected in 8 (33%) samples. Among the 86 patients evaluable for efficacy, response rate was 11.6%, with a median progression free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.9 and 7.3 months, respectively. No significant difference in PFS and OS was observed according to type of last therapy received before afatinib, type of EGFR mutation or adherence to Jackman criteria, and patients benefiting from afatinib therapy had longer PFS and OS (P < .001). Outcome results for repeated biopsy patients were similar to the whole population, with no evidence of response in T790M-positive patients. All patients were evaluable for toxicity, and 81% experienced an AE of any grade, with grade 3 to 4 AEs, mainly diarrhea and skin toxicity, occurring in 19 (20%) patients., Conclusion: Our results showed that afatinib has only modest efficacy in a real life population of EGFR mutant NSCLC patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction/background: Patients with advanced NSCLC who experience disease progression after second-line therapy might receive further active treatment. LIFE was an Italian cohort multicenter observational study composed of a cross-sectional and a longitudinal phase., Patients and Methods: In the longitudinal phase, described here, the primary aim was to determine the proportion of patients receiving third-line therapy among those who received second-line active treatment according to clinical practice. The proportion of patients receiving further treatment lines was also estimated., Results: The longitudinal phase was conducted between January and August 2012. Of 464 patients who began second-line therapy outside of clinical trials within the baseline evaluation, 56 (12.1%) were still receiving second-line therapy at the end of the observation period and 17 (3.7%) withdrew during or after second-line therapy. Of the remaining 391 patients, 158 (40.4%) received third-line treatment outside of clinical trials: 93 received a third-line chemotherapy and 65 a targeted agent. The main reason for interrupting third-line treatment was disease progression or death. During the same observation period, 25 of 113 patients who completed a third-line therapy received a fourth line of treatment. From diagnosis of NSCLC to the end of observation, biomarkers were tested in 323 patients (59.7%): epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in 315 (58.2%), Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations in 83 (15.3%) and Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation in 84 (15.5%)., Conclusion: In Italian clinical practice, the proportion of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving more than 2 treatment lines of therapy is not negligible., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The recent availability of crizotinib in clinical practice, for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) selected by the presence of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement, has relevant implications for both the diagnostic phase and the treatment choices. In the United States, crizotinib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011 for patients with ALK positivity detected by FDA-approved companion diagnostic test. As of January, 2014, the only FDA-approved diagnostic test is Vysis ALK Break-Apart FISH Probe Kit. In Europe, European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved crizotinib for ALK-positive patients in 2012, without specifying the type of test used for determining the positivity. FISH remains the reference technique for ALK determination, but, if fully validated, immunohistochemistry could challenge the current ALK screening practice. Given the robust evidence of activity of crizotinib in ALK-positive patients both pretreated and chemotherapy-naïve, and the favourable tolerability profile of the drug, many oncologists would prefer to administer the drug as early as possible. This is technically feasible in the United States, where crizotinib was approved well before the availability of the results of the randomized phase III trial comparing the drug with standard second-line chemotherapy, and the use of crizotinib in ALK-positive patients is not restricted to a specific line of treatment. On the contrary, in Europe, differently from the FDA decision, crizotinib cannot be used in chemotherapy-naïve patients. In both realities, a deeper knowledge of mechanisms of resistance, the role of repeated biopsies, the treatment strategy for patients experiencing disease progression with crizotinib, the choice of the best chemotherapy regimen are challenging topics for the management of ALK-positive patients in clinical practice.

The availability of targeted drugs has made the assessment of the EGFR mutation and ALK rearrangement critical in choosing the optimal treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In May 2013, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) organized an International Experts Panel Meeting to review strengths and limitations of the available evidence for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced NSCLC with EGFR or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations and to discuss implications for clinical practice and future clinical research. All patients with advanced NSCLC, with the exclusion of pure squamous cell carcinoma in former or current smokers, should be tested for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements before decisions are made on first-line treatment. First-line treatment of EGFR-mutated cases should be with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Any available agent (gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib) can be used, until further data from comparative studies may better guide TKI selection. As general rule, and when clinically feasible, results of EGFR mutational status should be awaited before starting first-line treatment. Panelists agreed that the use of crizotinib is justified in any line of treatment. Although solid evidence supporting the continuation of EGFR TKIs or crizotinib beyond progression is lacking, in some cases (minimal, asymptomatic progression, or oligoprogression manageable by local therapy), treatment continuation beyond progression could be justified. Experimental strategies to target tumor heterogeneity and to treat patients after failure of EGFR TKIs or crizotinib are considered high-priority areas of research. A number of relevant research priorities were identified to optimize available treatment options., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In vitro data suggest that panobinostat (LBH589), a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, may add therapeutic benefit in the treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) with regression of tumors., Methods: This multicenter, nonrandomized phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate antitumor activity of LBH589 in patients with previously treated SCLC. Patients received LBH589 administered intravenously at a dose of 20 mg/mq (days 1-8) every 21 days., Results: A total of 21 patients with extensive- or limited-stage SCLC were enrolled. Patients received a median of two cycles (range, 1-6). LBH589 was well tolerated, and the most common toxicities were grade 1 to 2 gastrointestinal disorders (nausea 38%, diarrhea 24%, vomiting 19%), grade 1 to 2 thrombocytopenia (14.3%). Of 19 patients evaluable for efficacy, two cases showed shrinkages more than 30% at first assessment, with time to progression of 14 and 21 weeks, respectively, and there were three long disease stabilizations of 12, 10, and 13 weeks. The study was prematurely closed because of a lack of activity., Conclusion: This is the first report of a pan-deacetylase inhibitor inducing tumor shrinkage and sustained stable disease in SCLC. We believe that although the trial was prematurely discontinued, modest clinical activity of LBH589 combined with a favorable safety profile in pretreated SCLC patients was observed, which warrants further exploration of the potential contribution of LBH589 in other trials.

After first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), many patients remain candidates for a second-line treatment. Docetaxel, pemetrexed and erlotinib are currently approved in the USA and Europe as second-line therapy for NSCLC, while gefitinib is approved and licensed in Europe, but not in the USA, for EGF receptor-mutated patients in the same setting. Results of the registration trials for these four agents show similar efficacy in terms of objective response rate and survival, but significantly different toxicity and tolerability. Therefore, at the time of failure of first-line treatment, it is crucial to evaluate different clinical factors that could help choose the second-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC, as performance status and comorbidities; new predictive biomarkers will be validated in future trials. Considering the different predictive and prognostic factors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors could be a valid option for second-line treatment of NSCLC.

Objective: AIOT (Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology) produces up-to-date, clinical practice guidelines for the management of lung cancer in Italy. Guidelines were developed by answering clinical relevant questions. Here we report only major clinical issues concerning the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: A PubMed search was performed to identify published data until December 2009. Abstracts presented at the main International meetings between 2004 and 2009 were also searched. The writing committee developed and graded recommendations, which were subsequently revised by experts. The search has been subsequently updated for this manuscript in December 2010., Results: In patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive tumour, gefitinib is recommended as first-line treatment. In presence of EGFR mutation negative or unknown status, patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, with good performance status (PS) and without major co-morbidities, chemotherapy with third-generation regimens containing cisplatin is the recommended treatment. In non-squamous NSCLC patients, also cisplatin plus pemetrexed and platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab should be considered. Carboplatin is a valid option for patients unsuitable for cisplatin. Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed or erlotinib is a reasonable choice if allowed by reimbursement procedures and discussed with patients. Elderly patients, defined as ≥ 70 years old, should receive third-generation single-agent chemotherapy, but in elderly patients with good PS, without major co-morbidities and with adequate organ function, platinum-based doublets with attenuated doses can be a valid option. In PS 2 patients, single-agent third-generation drug is a reasonable choice. Combination chemotherapy with carboplatin or low doses of cisplatin is a suitable alternative. For second-line treatment, two cytotoxic drugs (docetaxel and pemetrexed, the latter only in non-squamous tumours), and erlotinib, an EGFR inhibitor, are available. There are no strong data to help the choice between chemotherapy and erlotinib., Conclusions: Many developments have been made in advanced NSCLC treatment, and the appropriate use of available therapeutic approaches and the improved understanding of lung cancer molecular abnormalities continue to enhance the outcomes on the basis of well-designed clinical trials which address critical issues in this population., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Use of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has the potential to increase survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We therefore compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: In a multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (>or=18 years) with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chemotherapy plus cetuximab or just chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles. Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m(2) over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity had occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798., Findings: Between October, 2004, and January, 2006, 1125 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n=557) or chemotherapy alone (n=568). Patients given chemotherapy plus cetuximab survived longer than those in the chemotherapy-alone group (median 11.3 months vs 10.1 months; hazard ratio for death 0.871 [95% CI 0.762-0.996]; p=0.044). The main cetuximab-related adverse event was acne-like rash (57 [10%] of 548, grade 3)., Interpretation: Addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy represents a new treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer., Funding: Merck KGaA.

Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH) is a putative precursor of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) and adenocarcinoma of the lung, developing from terminal respiratory unit cells. AAH and BAC lesions typically present as ground-glass opacities at spiral chest computed tomography. Epidermal growth factor receptor polysomy/mutations, conferring higher sensitivity to Gefitinib, are frequent in BAC but less common in AAH. We describe an interesting case of disseminated AAH showing a sustained remission under Gefitinib therapy.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite several chemotherapeutic agents, a survival plateau has been reached, so new treatment strategies are clearly needed. A strong interest is now focused on the use of targeted therapies for the management of non-small-cell lung cancer. Monoclonal antibodies against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR; cetuximab) or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR; bevacizumab) and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib, erlotinib) are generally well tolerated and do not have the severe systemic side effects usually seen with cytotoxic drugs. A considerable number of treated patients develop dermatologic side effects, such as acneiform eruption, xerosis, and eczema, and unfortunately, this is often one cause of negative impact on a patient's quality of life. No controlled clinical trials have been performed to manage rash, so it is necessary to provide suggestions for managing this frequent side effect. The main problems related to the class of angiogenesis inhibitors affecting VEGFRs are the exclusion of patients with brain metastases and/or squamous histology, and vascular adverse effects, such as hypertension, proteinuria, thrombosis, and hemorrhage. There are other new agents in clinical development, such as sorafenib, sunitinib, vorinostat, vandetanib, everolimus, panobinostat, and ASA404. They are all associated with a spectrum of toxicities, often reversible with interruption of dosing. Further research is required to clarify the role of targeted therapies and toxicities management.

Owing to the slow but sustained progress made in lung cancer treatment over the last 20 years, several therapeutic options are now available in the first-line setting as well as for patients who have progressed after one or more previous lines of treatment. Considering the growing array of choices currently confronting clinicians involved in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), an effort should be made to define the optimal treatment option in each disease setting and to identify a logical therapeutic strategy after initial disease progression. This is especially crucial in the management of young, fit patients, who may be suitable candidates for two or more lines of therapy. At present, a rational treatment strategy for advanced NSCLC may be designed on the basis of patient clinicopathological features and rely on evidence from large, well-conducted clinical trials. In a near future the results of prospective validation studies will provide more sophisticated approaches for the classification of lung cancer patients, allowing clinicians to make individualised treatment decisions based on tumour molecular profile and on novel, more refined predictive/prognostic factors.

In the U.S. and Europe, the current options for the second- and third-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are cytotoxic drugs and targeted agents. Docetaxel was the first drug approved for second-line treatment after two phase III trials demonstrated its superiority over best supportive care (BSC) alone and single-agent chemotherapy. Pemetrexed was also registered for use as second-line therapy after it was demonstrated to have activity comparable with, and a more favorable toxicity profile than, docetaxel. Erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, is the only biological agent to have been approved in the U.S. and Europe for lung cancer treatment after a study showed its superiority over BSC in recurrent (second-/third-line) NSCLC patients. This review focuses on these drugs, dealing with the results supporting the choice among docetaxel, pemetrexed, and erlotinib in second- and/or third-line treatment.

Background: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) require care that emphasizes symptom palliation in addition to extending survival. The low response rates and minimal survival gains observed in second-line studies underscore the need to assess treatment efficacy with symptomatic end points., Methods: To characterize the relationship between patient-reported health-related quality of life outcomes and efficacy end points (tumor response, overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS]), retrospective analyses were performed on Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) data (n = 488) from the phase III study of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) versus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks) in advanced NSCLC. The LCSS data consisted of patient ratings of six symptoms and three summary items using 100-mm visual analogue scales. The mean maximum improvement for each item was categorized according to best tumor response, with statistical analyses based on a two-factor interaction model (with treatment arm and response group as fixed factors). Additional analyses pooled data between treatment arms and examined correlation (nonparametric and Pearson's) of time to first worsening of symptoms (TWS) with PFS and OS., Results: All LCSS items, except hemoptysis, showed mean maximum improvement over baseline for responders and patients with stable disease (p < 0.01), with greater improvement associated with response. Median TWS for each LCSS item ranged between 2.3 months (fatigue) and 7.0 months (cough), with correlation between TWS and PFS and OS (all p values

The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still debated. To guide clinical management of these patients and suggest the priorities for clinical research in this field, an International Expert Panel met in Naples, Italy, on April 19 to 20, 2004. Results and conclusions based on a review of evidence available in the literature to date are presented in this article. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is recommended to better define prognosis and to predict tolerance to treatment. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. These data should be interpreted cautiously because retrospective subgroup analyses are encumbered by selection bias; hence, randomized trials dedicated to platinum-based chemotherapy for nonselected elderly patients are warranted. Several promising biologic therapies are under investigation; however, with present data, target-based agents as first-line treatment for elderly NSCLC patients are not yet recommended. Clinical research, with trials specifically designed for elderly patients, is mandatory. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, a taxane) should be the recommended option for nonselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Platinum-based chemotherapy is a viable option for fit patients with adequate organ function. Best supportive care remains important, in addition to chemotherapy or as the exclusive option for patients who are unsuitable for more aggressive treatment.

According to the updated 2004 guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), docetaxel (Taxotere) can be considered the standard second-line chemotherapy in patients relapsing after frontline therapy. This was based on two phase III trials (TAX 317 and TAX 320) that demonstrated the superiority of docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 in the parameters of survival, quality of life, and disease/symptom control when compared to best supportive care or alternative single-agent chemotherapy. The response rate was approximately 60%, with a median survival time of 7 months and a 1-year survival rate of 30%. Despite the activity demonstrated, this schedule showed an important toxicity profile, with grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia occurring in 70% and 11% of patients, respectively. However, the results obtained by these studies stimulated research interest in new drugs for this disease setting. Pemetrexed (Alimta), a new multitargeted antifolate, has achieved promising results in NSCLC treatment, as a single agent or in combination with other drugs. In the second-line setting, a large phase II study demonstrated good activity of pemetrexed, with an acceptable toxicity profile. This led to a phase III registration trial that compared pemetrexed at 500 mg/m2 to the standard docetaxel dose of 75 mg/m2. While results from this trial demonstrated a similar efficacy of the two regimens in response rate and survival, pemetrexed achieved a better safety profile. These results support the use of pemetrexed as a new option in the second-line treatment of NSCLC.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) day 1 with vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P =.105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P <.001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P <.001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P =.004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P <.001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P =.092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P <.001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P <.001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed., Conclusion: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

Background: Epoetin alfa, administered at standard dosages of 10,000-20,000 IU three times weekly or 40,000-60,000 IU once weekly, has been shown to significantly increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels, decrease transfusion requirements, and improve quality-of-life parameters in patients undergoing chemotherapy.Objective. This open-label, nonrandomized, historically controlled study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an induction dose of epoetin alfa in patients with moderate or severe anemia who were receiving chemotherapy., Methods: Nineteen patients with solid tumors and Hb levels < 9.0 g/dl were enrolled. The patients received single s.c. injections of epoetin alfa, 40,000 IU, on study days 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13, and were then observed for the following 30 days. Nineteen other cancer patients who had matching characteristics and had received epoetin alfa, 10,000 IU, three times weekly for the 45-day study period, served as historical controls. The primary efficacy variable was change in Hb level from baseline to days 15 (approximately week 2) and 45 (approximately week 6.5). Secondary efficacy variables included the percent response (Hb increase > or = 1 g/dl) and percent major response (Hb increase > or = 2 g/dl) at days 15 and 45, the durations of response and major response after day 45, the proportion of patients transfused within the 45 study days, the changes in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score at days 15 and 45, and the ability to maintain the planned chemotherapy dose (dose intensity) over the 45-day study., Results: Mean increases in Hb level in the epoetin alfa 40,000 IU group were significantly greater than those in the historical control group both at day 15 and at day 45. The increase in Hb level in the control group approximated increases reported with standard 3-times-weekly epoetin alfa at day 15 but was somewhat lower than the increases typically seen by day 45, presumably due to the fact that, in the present study, the epoetin alfa dose was not doubled in initial nonresponders, as is commonly done with standard epoetin alfa treatment. The rates of major response for epoetin alfa 40,000 IU patients (37% at day 15 and 84% at day 45) were higher than those for control patients (16% and 21%, respectively). Also, the transfusion rate was lower and performance status scores were better in the epoetin alfa 40,000 IU patients than in the control patients. In all, 74% of epoetin alfa 40,000 IU patients versus 47% of control patients received 100% of the planned chemotherapy dose. Epoetin alfa was well tolerated in both treatment groups., Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that epoetin alfa at a dose of 40,000 IU administered five times over 2 weeks may confer even higher response rates than those seen with standard dosing regimens. These encouraging results support further study of the proposed induction dose of epoetin alfa in a larger, randomized, prospectively controlled trial., (Copyright AlphaMed Press)

Background: Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that a fixed infusion rate of 10 mg/m2 per minute may be more effective than the standard 30-minute infusion of gemcitabine. To investigate the activity and toxicity of the cisplatin plus gemcitabine combination with gemcitabine at a fixed infusion rate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), the authors conducted a randomized Phase II trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine at the 30-minute standard infusion (calibration arm) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine at a fixed infusion rate (experimental arm)., Methods: A total of 112 chemonaive patients with advanced NSCLC entered the study: 57 patients in Arm A and 55 patients in Arm B. The patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 over 30 minutes (Arm A) or at a rate of 10 mg/m2 per minute (Arm B). In both treatment arms, cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m2 was administered on Day 15 every 28 days., Results: The overall response rates in Arms A and B were 26% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10-42%) and 34% (95% CI, 17-52%) (intent-to-treat-analysis), respectively. The median time to disease progression was 6 months (range, 1-26 months) and 8 months (range, 2-21 months), respectively, for Arms A and B and the median overall survival was 13 months (range, 2-26 months) for each arm. It is interesting to note that a high response rate (67%) of brain metastases was noted in the experimental arm. Toxicity was tolerable and comparable in the two arms., Conclusions: The results of this randomized Phase II trial demonstrated that cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine at fixed infusion rate (10 mg/m2 per minute) is active and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC., (Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days., Results: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms., Conclusion: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.