Search

Purpose: This phase 1b/2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of capmatinib plus nazartinib in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In phase 1b, patients with progression on first-/second-generation EGFR-TKIs received escalating doses of capmatinib 200-400 mg bid plus nazartinib 50-150 mg qd. Once the MTD/RP2D was declared, phase 2 commenced with patient enrollment into groups according to mutation status and prior lines of treatment: group 1 (fasted; EGFR-TKI resistant; 1-3 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET); group 2 (fasted; EGFR-TKI naïve; 0-2 prior lines; de novo T790M+; any MET); group 3 (fasted; treatment-naïve; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; T790M-; any MET); group 4 (with food; 0-2 prior lines; EGFR L858R/ex19del ; any T790M/MET). Primary endpoints in phase 2 were investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 (groups 1-3), safety, and tolerability of the combination with food (group 4). Efficacy was assessed by T790M and MET status for a subgroup of patients., Results: The RP2D was capmatinib 400 mg bid plus nazartinib 100 mg qd. In phase 2 (n = 144), the ORR was 28.8 %, 33.3 %, 61.7 %, and 42.9 % in groups 1 (n = 52), 2 (n = 3), 3 (n = 47), and 4 (n = 42), respectively. In group 1 +phase 1b RP2D, the ORR was 45.8 %, 26.2 %, 37.9 %, and 32.4 % in MET+ (n = 24), MET- (n = 42), T790M+ (n = 29), and T790M- (n = 34) patients. Most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (≥25 %; n = 144) were peripheral edema (54.9 %), nausea (41.7 %), diarrhea (34.0 %), and maculopapular rash (25.0 %)., Conclusion: Capmatinib plus nazartinib showed antitumor activity in patients with EGFR-TKI-resistant, EGFR-mutated NSCLC. The overall safety profile was acceptable., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02335944., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Enriqueta Felip: Consulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo. Speakers' Bureau: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Touch Oncology. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche. Other Relationship: Grifols. Uncompensated Relationships: Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí , SEOM (Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica), President from 2021–2023, “ETOP IBCSG Partners” Member of the Scientific Committee. Giulio Metro: Consultants fee from Amgen, Pfizer, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. Ross A. Soo: Advisory Board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lily, Merck, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Roche, Taiho, Takeda, Thermo Fisher, Yuhan. Research grant: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. Jürgen Wolf: Advisory boards and lecture fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda; Research Support (to institution): BMS, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Novartis, Pfizer. Benjamin J. Solomon: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Roche/Genentech, Pfizer (Inst), Amgen (Inst). Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Amgen, Lilly, BeiGene, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline. Research Funding: Sanofi (Inst). Daniel SW Tan: Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Merck, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, C4 Therapeutics. Research Funding: Novartis (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche. Andrea Ardizzoni: Honoraria: AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Abbvie, Roche. Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen Oncology, Roche, Sanofi. Dae Ho Lee: Honoraria: Abbvie; AstraZeneca/MedImmune; BC World Pharm; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; ChongKeunDang Healthcare; Lilly; Menarini; MSD; Novartis; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pfizer; Roche/Genentech; Samyang; ST Cube; Takeda; Yuhan. Consulting or Advisory Role: ST Cube. Lecia V. Sequist: Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca; Genentech/Roche; Takeda. Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Delfi Diagnostics (Inst); Novartis (Inst). Fabrice Barlesi: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Eisai Europe (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst). Research Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Takeda (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech. Santiago Ponce-Aix: No conflicts of interest. Delvys Rodriguez Abreu: Consulting/advisory role from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca Spain, Novartis; Speaker fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD; Travel expense from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, and Novartis. Maria Rosario Garcia Campelo: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology. Speakers' Bureau: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD Oncology, Sanofi/Aventis, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, Lilly. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, Pfizer. Mette Sprauten: No conflicts of interest. Leslie O’Sullivan Djentuh: Employee of Novartis. Nathalie Smith: Employee of Novartis. Aline Jary: Employee of Novartis. Riccardo Belli: Employee of Novartis. Sabine Glaser: Employee of Novartis and stockholder of Novartis, Alcon, Sandoz. Mike Zou: Employee of Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. Xiaoming Cui: Employee and stockholder - Novartis. Monica Giovannini: Employee of Novartis. James Chih-Hsin Yang: Honoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer. Consulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Celgene, Bayer, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Yuhan, Hansoh, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, AbbVie, Takeda, Amgen, Incyte, Merck Serono (Inst), Janssen (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Chemotherapy associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors is currently the standard of care in several tumor indications. This combination approach improves progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and complete pathological response (pCR) in several cancer types both in the early and metastatic approaches. However, the distinct spectrum of toxicities between cytotoxic side effects and immune related adverse events (irAEs) with similar clinical presentations and different management strategies remains a challenge in daily practice for healthcare professionals. This review summarizes the most common toxicities reported in the randomized clinical trials that led to the subsequent FDA approval of these combinations, across tumor indications. We cite in particular: non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, triple negative breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, gastric carcinoma, esophageal carcinoma, cervical carcinoma and biliary tract carcinoma. We found that the combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy was associated with an increased incidence of all grade adverse events (RR 1.11 [1.09; 1.12]) without an excess in treatment related mortality when compared to chemotherapy alone. We report also an increase in the incidence of serious adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.16 [1.10;1.24]); in particular: high grade diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, rash and elevated liver enzymes. Together with the collaboration of our institutional network of organ specialists with expertise in irAEs, we propose practical recommendations for physicians to enhance clinical care and management of patients undergoing treatment with combined ICI immunotherapy and 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 © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: 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., Patients and Methods: 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/m 2 d1, 22) in patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or gemcitabine (1,150 mg/m 2 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)., Results: 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)., Conclusion: Switch maintenance therapy significantly prolonged PFS but not OS and, thus, should not be proposed to elderly patients with advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The incidence of lung cancer has dramatically increased in women. Preclinical data have suggested that combining EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with an antiestrogen may overcome resistance to EGFR-TKI., Patients and Methods: The IFCT-1003 LADIE trial was a 2 × 2 arms parallel open-label randomized phase II trial. EGFR-TKI-naïve postmenopausal women with advanced lung cancer were treated with gefitinib (G) versus gefitinib + fulvestrant (G+F) in the EGFR-mutated group (EGFR + ) or with erlotinib (E) versus erlotinib + fulvestrant (E+F) in the EGFR wild-type group (EGFR-WT). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 and 9 months for EGFR-WT and EGFR + patients., Results: Overall, 204 patients (gefitinib 104 and G+F 100) and 175 patients (erlotinib 87 and E+F 88) were enrolled in the EGFR + and EGFR-WT cohorts. In the EGFR + cohort, the primary endpoint was reached, with 58% of the G+F group patients being nonprogressive at 9 months. Adding fulvestrant to gefitinib was not associated with improved PFS (9.9 vs 9.4 months) or overall survival (OS; 22.1 vs 28.6 months). In the EGFR-WT cohort, the primary endpoint was also achieved (33.7% of the patients were nonprogressive at 3 months). Adding fulvestrant to erlotinib was not associated with improved outcome (PFS 1.8 vs 2.0 and OS 10.3 vs 7.3 months). No PFS difference was observed regarding estrogen receptor alpha expression. The tolerance was as expected with no treatment-related death., Conclusions: Adding fulvestrant to EGFR-TKI is feasible, but not associated with prolonged PFS regardless of EGFR status. The lack of benefits while combining fulvestrant to EGFR-TKI does not support its future development in an unselected population., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Second-line chemotherapy regimens have demonstrated poor benefit after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC)., Methods: 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/m 2 of paclitaxel (D1, D8, D15) plus 10 mg/kg of bevacizumab (D1, D15) every 28 days or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 ) every 21 days; crossover was allowed after disease progression. Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01763671., Results: 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)., Conclusion: 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., Clinical Trials Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01763671., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement A.B.C. has reported receiveing honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BoehringerIngelheim, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer and travel grants from Roche, AstraZeneca, BoehringerIngelheim, Novartis and Pfizer. C.A.V. has reported receiving grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche. O.M. has received personal fees from BMS, BoehringerIngelheim, Astra Zeneca, Novartis and Hoffman-Roche. F.B. has received personal fees from Astra Zeneca, BMS, BoehringerIngelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly Oncology, Hoffman-Roche, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Pfizer. G.Z. has received grant from Roche and BMS, personal fees from Roche, BMS, Astra Zeneca and MSD and non-financial support from BMS, Astra Zeneca and Pfizer. D.P. has received personal fees from Roche Hoffman, Astellas, Lilly, Janssen, BMS, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and Pfizer. C.F.D. has received other support from MSD (CPLF 2017), Laidet Medical (ERS 2016) and BoehringerIngelheim (CPLF 2016). E.P. has received personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca and BMS and personal fees from Pfizer. D.M-.S. has received personal fees from Roche, BMS, MSD and Eli Lilly. B.B. has received institutional grants for clinical and translational research from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, Clovis, GSK, Servier, EOS, Onxeo, OncoMed, Inivata and OSE Pharma. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In an early-phase study involving patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with nivolumab monotherapy, particularly among patients with tumors that expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC., Methods: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. The patients who had a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. All the patients had received no previous chemotherapy. The primary end point reported here was overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more., Results: Among the patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0 to 20.1) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 14.9 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 16.7) with chemotherapy (P = 0.007), with 2-year overall survival rates of 40.0% and 32.8%, respectively. The median duration of response was 23.2 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6.2 months with chemotherapy. The overall survival benefit was also observed in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1%, with a median duration of 17.2 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 22.0) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 12.2 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.3) with chemotherapy. Among all the patients in the trial, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.2 to 19.9) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 13.9 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.1) with chemotherapy. The percentage of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in the overall population was 32.8% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.0% with chemotherapy., Conclusions: First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in a longer duration of overall survival than did chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, independent of the PD-L1 expression level. No new safety concerns emerged with longer follow-up. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: Necitumumab, an anti-EGFR antibody, and abemaciclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, have shown activity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and have non-overlapping toxicities. A 2-part, single-arm, multicenter, phase 1b trial was conducted to test the safety and efficacy of necitumumab plus abemaciclib in patients with advanced NSCLC who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy, including a platinum-based one., Materials and Methods: Part A was a dose-escalation phase for abemaciclib (100, 150, 200 mg, Q12 H) in combination with necitumumab 800 mg D1D8 Q3W to determine the recommended dose for the expansion cohort, Part B. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months., Results: Sixty-six patients entered the study: 71% male, 41% squamous histology, 15% never-smokers. In Part A (n = 15), the maximum tolerated dose of abemaciclib was 150 mg Q12H in combination with necitumumab 800 mg. In 57 patients treated at this dose level, the 3-month PFS rate was 32.3% (95% CI: 20.4-44.8); median PFS was 2.14 months (1.41-2.76). The overall response rate (ORR) was 5.3% (1.1-14.6). The median OS was 6.93 months (4.96-12.85). In the exploratory subgroup analysis of EGFR expression-negative patients (n = 10), both the 3-month PFS and ORR were 0.0%. The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (14%), dyspnea (9%), diarrhea (7%), vomiting (7%), and hypokalemia (7%)., Conclusions: Abemaciclib 150 mg Q12H with necitumumab 800 mg did not produce an additive effect over single-agent activity in patients with Stage IV NSCLC. The safety profile was consistent with the individual study drugs., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P)., Results: Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733; p < .0001 for T+E, HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.546-0.870; p = .0015 for P+E; OS: 4.0 mo for both arms, HR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.264-0.422; p < .0001 for T+E; HR, 0.449; 95% CI, 0.353-0.576; p < .0001 for P+E). The VS-G population had higher OS than the VS-P population within Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (PS) categories. VS-G patients on the T+E arm had longer PFS, but not OS, than VS-G patients on the P+E arm ( p = .0108). Among EGFR mutation-positive patients, those with VS-G status had a median OS more than twice that of any other group (OS: 31.6 mo for T+E and 22.8 mo for P+E), whereas VS-P patients had similar survival rates as VS-G, EGFR-wild type patients (OS: 13.7 mo for T+E and 6.5 mo for P+E)., Conclusion: In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors., Implications for Practice: This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Purpose: IDO1 induces immune suppression in T cells through l-tryptophan (Trp) depletion and kynurenine (Kyn) accumulation in the local tumor microenvironment, suppressing effector T cells and hyperactivating regulatory T cells (Treg). Navoximod is an investigational small-molecule inhibitor of IDO1. This phase I study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of navoximod in combination with atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer., Patients and Methods: The study consisted of a 3+3 dose-escalation stage ( n = 66) and a tumor-specific expansion stage ( n = 92). Navoximod was given orally every 12 hours continuously for 21 consecutive days of each cycle with the exception of cycle 1, where navoximod administration started on day -1 to characterize pharmacokinetics. Atezolizumab was administered by intravenous infusion 1,200 mg every 3 weeks on day 1 of each cycle., Results: Patients ( n = 157) received navoximod at 6 dose levels (50-1,000 mg) in combination with atezolizumab. The maximum administered dose was 1,000 mg twice daily; the MTD was not reached. Navoximod demonstrated a linear pharmacokinetic profile, and plasma Kyn generally decreased with increasing doses of navoximod. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (22%), rash (22%), and chromaturia (20%). Activity was observed at all dose levels in various tumor types (melanoma, pancreatic, prostate, ovarian, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, cervical, neural sheath, non-small cell lung cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial bladder cancer): 6 (9%) dose-escalation patients achieved partial response, and 10 (11%) expansion patients achieved partial response or complete response., Conclusions: The combination of navoximod and atezolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics for patients with advanced cancer. Although activity was observed, there was no clear evidence of benefit from adding navoximod to atezolizumab., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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: In the phase II/III KEYNOTE-010 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01905657), pembrolizumab significantly prolonged overall survival over docetaxel in patients with previously treated, programmed death ligand 1-expressing (tumor proportion score ≥ 1%), advanced NSCLC. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results are reported here., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 2 or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. HRQoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLC) Core 30 (C30), EORTC QLQ-Lung Cancer 13 (LC13), and EuroQoL-5D. Key analyses included mean baseline-to-week-12 change in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) score, functioning and symptom domains, and time to deterioration in a QLQ-LC13 composite endpoint of cough, dyspnea, and chest pain., Results: Patient reported outcomes compliance was high across all three instruments. Pembrolizumab was associated with better QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores from baseline to 12 weeks than docetaxel, regardless of pembrolizumab dose or tumor proportion score status (not significant). Compared with docetaxel, fewer pembrolizumab-treated patients had "deteriorated" status and more had "improved" status in GHS/QoL. Nominally significant improvement was reported in many EORTC symptom domains with pembrolizumab, and nominally significant worsening was reported with docetaxel. Significant prolongation in true time to deterioration for the QLQ-LC13 composite endpoint emerged for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg compared to docetaxel (nominal two-sided p = 0.03), but not for the 2-mg/kg dose., Conclusions: These findings suggest that HRQoL and symptoms are maintained or improved to a greater degree with pembrolizumab than with docetaxel in this NSCLC patient population., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Afatinib is a selective, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown survival benefit in lung squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) patients. Pembrolizumab, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody to the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor, has also shown survival benefit in lung SCC. Concurrent inhibition of the PD-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways represents a rational approach to improve responses and delay the onset of treatment resistance in lung SCC., Trial Design: This phase II, open-label, single-arm study (NCT03157089) is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with stage IIIB/IV lung SCC that has progressed during/after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Eligible patients must have ≥1 target lesion (as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and must have not received previous immune checkpoint inhibitor/EGFR-targeted therapy. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and safety profile will be determined during a safety run-in with oral afatinib (starting dose, 40 mg/d) with intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). In the main study, all patients will receive afatinib at the RP2D with pembrolizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for up to 35 cycles. The primary end point is objective response (complete + partial response). Other end points include disease control, duration of objective response, progression-free survival, overall survival, tumor shrinkage, RP2D, and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory biomarker analysis will be performed. This study is being conducted in the United States, Spain, France, South Korea, and Turkey. Enrollment commenced in September 2017, with a target of 50 to 62 patients., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor roniciclib with platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with extensive-disease SCLC., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, unselected patients with previously untreated extensive-disease SCLC received roniciclib, 5 mg, or placebo twice daily according to a 3 days-on, 4 days-off schedule in 21-day cycles, with concomitant cisplatin or carboplatin on day 1 and etoposide on days 1 to 3. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Other end points included overall survival, objective response rate, and safety., Results: A total of 140 patients received treatment: 70 with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 70 with placebo plus chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival times was 4.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.2-5.5) with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.6-5.6) with placebo plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.242, 95% CI: 0.820-1.881, p = 0.8653). Median overall survival times was 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.9-11.1) with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 10.3 months (95% CI: 8.7-11.9) with placebo plus chemotherapy (HR = 1.281, 95% CI: 0.776-1.912, p = 0.7858). The objective response rates were 60.6% with roniciclib plus chemotherapy and 74.6% with placebo plus chemotherapy. Common treatment-emergent adverse events in both groups included nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with roniciclib plus chemotherapy (57.1%) than with placebo plus chemotherapy (38.6%)., Conclusions: Roniciclib combined with chemotherapy demonstrated an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in patients with extensive-disease SCLC, and the study was prematurely terminated., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: To inform health-technology assessments of new adjuvant treatments, we describe treatment patterns in patients with complete resection of stage IB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK)., Materials and Methods: Data were collected via medical record abstraction. Patients were aged ≥18 years with completely resected stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, diagnosed between 01 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. Median follow-up was 26 months. Adjuvant treatment patterns and clinical outcomes were summarized descriptively., Results: Among the 831 patients studied, 239 (29%) had stage IB disease, 179 (22%) had stage IIA disease, 165 (20%) had stage IIB disease, and 248 (30%) had stage IIIA disease. Adjuvant systemic therapy was received by 402 patients (48.4%), (France, 61.8%; Germany, 51.9%; UK, 33.4%). Use of adjuvant therapy increased with increasing stage of disease. Cisplatin/vinorelbine and carboplatin/vinorelbine were the most frequently prescribed adjuvant regimens. Median disease-free survival was 48.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.3-not estimable); the 25th percentile was 13.2 months (95% CI, 11.0-15.3). 204 patients (24%) died during the follow-up period. The median overall survival was not reached, the 25th percentile was 31.2 months (95% CI 26.8-36.0 months). 272 patients (33%) had disease recurrence during the follow-up period. For 86 of those patients, the first recurrence was local or regional with no distant metastasis and 14 had further progression to metastatic disease during the follow-up time. For the other 186 patients, the first recurrence involved distant metastases. A total of 200 patients had metastatic disease at any time during study follow-up., Conclusions: Less than half the patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC in this observational study received adjuvant systemic therapy. A high rate of first recurrence with distant metastatic disease was observed, emphasising the need for more effective systemic adjuvant therapies in this population., (Copyright © 2018 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This phase Ib/II study evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and efficacy of the pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor roniciclib with cisplatin-etoposide (CIS-ETOP) or carboplatin-etoposide (CARBO-ETOP) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC)., Patients and Methods: In this open-label, non-randomized study, patients with previously untreated ED-SCLC received roniciclib twice daily (BID) in a 3 days on/4 days off schedule. Cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 or carboplatin (AUC5) dose was administered on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m 2 on days 1-3, of 21-day cycles. Phase Ib used a dose-escalation design to define the MTD for phase II. Pharmacokinetics were assessed., Results: Forty-three patients received treatment (roniciclib 2.5 mg BID [+ CARBO-ETOP, n = 4; + CIS-ETOP, n = 3] and roniciclib 5 mg BID [+ CARBO-ETOP, n = 24; + CIS-ETOP, n = 12]). The MTD of roniciclib was 5 mg BID with CARBO-ETOP or CIS-ETOP. Common adverse events were nausea (90.7%) and vomiting (69.8%). Roniciclib was readily absorbed following oral administration at the MTD (median t max 0.5-1 h), with a 30-40% reduction in exposure when co-administered with CARBO-ETOP or CIS-ETOP; administration of roniciclib had no effect on etoposide or platinum pharmacokinetics. The response rate was 81.4% (35/43) overall and 86.1% (31/36) in the pooled roniciclib 5 mg BID population (all partial responses)., Conclusion: Roniciclib co-administered with chemotherapy in patients with ED-SCLC demonstrated tolerability, acceptable pharmacokinetics, and promising efficacy. An observed safety signal in a related phase II study resulted in discontinuation of the present study and termination of further roniciclib development., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The cancer-cell-killing property of atezolizumab may be enhanced by the blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor-mediated immunosuppression with bevacizumab. This open-label, phase 3 study evaluated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received chemotherapy., Methods: We randomly assigned patients to receive atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP), bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP), or atezolizumab plus BCP (ABCP) every 3 weeks for four or six cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab, bevacizumab, or both. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival both among patients in the intention-to-treat population who had a wild-type genotype (WT population; patients with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were excluded) and among patients in the WT population who had high expression of an effector T-cell (Teff) gene signature in the tumor (Teff-high WT population) and overall survival in the WT population. The ABCP group was compared with the BCP group before the ACP group was compared with the BCP group., Results: In the WT population, 356 patients were assigned to the ABCP group, and 336 to the BCP group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (8.3 months vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.74; P<0.001); the corresponding values in the Teff-high WT population were 11.3 months and 6.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68]; P<0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group in the entire intention-to-treat population (including those with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations) and among patients with low or negative programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, those with low Teff gene-signature expression, and those with liver metastases. Median overall survival among the patients in the WT population was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (19.2 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of ABCP was consistent with previously reported safety risks of the individual medicines., Conclusions: The addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression and EGFR or ALK genetic alteration status. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower150 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02366143 .).

Lessons Learned: The lack of efficacy associated with anti-EGFL7 combined with standard bevacizumab and chemotherapy in this phase II trial in non-small cell lung carcinoma is consistent with the lack of benefit observed in colorectal carcinoma, highlighting the challenge of enhancing the efficacy of VEGF inhibition in unselected populations.Future efforts with agents like anti-EGFL7 should be guided by advances in pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents., Background: Epidermal growth factor-like domain 7 (EGFL7) is an extracellular matrix-associated protein that is upregulated during angiogenesis and supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of the anti-EGFL7 antibody, parsatuzumab, in combination with bevacizumab plus platinum-based therapy for advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC)., Methods: Patients ( n  = 104) were randomized to either placebo or parsatuzumab (600 mg) in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and carboplatin/paclitaxel, administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered for up to six cycles. Bevacizumab and parsatuzumab/placebo were administered for a maximum of 24 months., Results: The progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.8; p  = .047). The median PFS was 6.7 months for the parsatuzumab arm versus 8.1 months for the placebo arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5-2.2; p  = .847). The objective response rate (ORR) was 29% in the parsatuzumab arm and 56% in the placebo arm. Overall safety and tolerability were consistent with the established toxicity profile of bevacizumab., Conclusion: There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line NS-NSCLC., (©AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary is the property of the authors.)

Concomitant administration of bevacizumab and pemetrexed-cisplatin is a common treatment for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Vascular normalization following bevacizumab administration may transiently enhance drug delivery, suggesting improved efficacy with sequential administration. To investigate optimal scheduling, we conducted a study in NSCLC-bearing mice. First, experiments demonstrated improved efficacy when using sequential vs. concomitant scheduling of bevacizumab and chemotherapy. Combining this data with a mathematical model of tumor growth under therapy accounting for the normalization effect, we predicted an optimal delay of 2.8 days between bevacizumab and chemotherapy. This prediction was confirmed experimentally, with reduced tumor growth of 38% as compared to concomitant scheduling, and prolonged survival (74 vs. 70 days). Alternate sequencing of 8 days failed in achieving a similar increase in efficacy, thus emphasizing the utility of modeling support to identify optimal scheduling. The model could also be a useful tool in the clinic to personally tailor regimen sequences., (© 2017 The Authors CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose Patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This randomized, double-blind, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line ipilimumab or placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous NSCLC. Patients and Methods Patients with stage IV or recurrent chemotherapy-naïve squamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive paclitaxel and carboplatin plus blinded ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks on a phased induction schedule comprising six chemotherapy cycles, with ipilimumab or placebo from cycles 3 to 6 and then, after induction treatment, ipilimumab or placebo maintenance every 12 weeks for patients with stable disease or better. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients receiving at least one dose of blinded study therapy. Results Of 956 randomly assigned patients, 749 received at least one dose of blinded study therapy (chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, n = 388; chemotherapy plus placebo, n = 361). Median OS was 13.4 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab and 12.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.07; P = .25). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for both groups (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), any-grade serious TRAEs, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab (51%, 33%, and 28%, respectively) than with chemotherapy plus placebo (35%, 10%, and 7%, respectively). Seven treatment-related deaths occurred with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, and one occurred with chemotherapy plus placebo. Conclusion The addition of ipilimumab to first-line chemotherapy did not prolong OS compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The safety profile of chemotherapy plus ipilimumab was consistent with that observed in previous lung and melanoma studies. Ongoing studies are evaluating ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab in this population.

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)., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Little is known about the prevalence, prognosis, and response to treatment of advanced NSCLC harboring multiple genomic alterations., Methods: The French Biomarkers France database, which includes 17,664 patients, was used. The prevalence of multiple alterations, their associations, their impact on prognosis (overall survival [OS]), and their response to targeted or conventional treatments (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate) were assessed and compared with those of patients harboring single or no mutation., Results: We identified 162 patients (0.9%) with double alterations and three with triple mutations. Multiple molecular alterations preferentially involved KRAS (67.3%), phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha gene (PIK3CA) (53.3%), and EGFR (42.4%). Patients with multiple alterations were more likely to be male (56.4%), be never-smokers (25.8 versus 34.7%, p < 0.001), and exhibit adenocarcinomas (83.6%). OS did not differ between single and multiple alterations. Patients with EGFR/KRAS and EGFR/PIK3CA mutations experienced worse PFS than did patients with only EGFR mutations (7.1 and 7.1 versus 14.9 months, p = 0.02 and 0.002, respectively). Concomitant mutations in patients harboring anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangement bore little impact on OS (17.7 versus 20.3 months, p = 0.57) or PFS (10.3 versus 12.1 months, p = 0.93). Patients harboring KRAS mutations plus another alteration had an OS time (13.4 versus 11.2 months, p = 0.28), PFS time (6.4 versus 7.2 months, p = 0.78), and objective response rate under first-line chemotherapy (41.7% versus 37.2%) similar to those of patients harboring KRAS mutations only., Conclusions: With almost 1% of patients harboring multiple alterations, the dogma of mutually exclusive mutations should be reconsidered. Although double mutations do not decrease OS, they do alter PFS under first-line treatment for patients with EGFR mutations. Among limited numbers of patients, therapies targeting the dominant oncogene seem to usually remain active., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: The tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib improves the outcomes of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. The coexistence of the T790M resistance mutation with another EGFR mutation in treatment-naive patients has been associated with a shorter progression-free survival to EGFR inhibition than in the absence of the T790M mutation. To test this hypothesis clinically, we developed a proof-of-concept study, in which patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC were treated with the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, stratified by the presence of the pretreatment T790M mutation., Methods: BELIEF was an international, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 29 centres in eight European countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had treatment-naive, pathologically confirmed stage IIIB or stage IV lung adenocarcinoma with a confirmed, activating EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation). Patients received oral erlotinib 150 mg per day and intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days and were tested centrally for the pretreatment T790M resistance mutation with a peptide nucleic acid probe-based real-time PCR. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and was stratified into two parallel substudies according to the centrally confirmed pretreatment T790M mutation status of enrolled patients (T790M positive or negative). The safety analysis was done in all patients that have received at least one dose of trial treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01562028., Findings: Between June 11, 2012, and Oct 28, 2014, 109 patients were enrolled and included in the efficacy analysis. 37 patients were T790M mutation positive and 72 negative. The overall median progression-free survival was 13·2 months (95% CI 10·3-15·5), with a 12 month progression-free survival of 55% (95% CI 45-64). The primary endpoint was met only in substudy one (T790M-positive patients). In the T790M-positive group, median progression-free survival was 16·0 months (12·7 to not estimable), with a 12 month progression-free survival of 68% (50-81), whereas in the T790M-negative group, median progression-free survival was 10·5 months (9·4-14·2), with a 12 month progression-free survival of 48% (36-59). Of 106 patients included in the safety analysis, five had grade 4 adverse events (one acute coronary syndrome, one biliary tract infection, one other neoplasms, and two colonic perforations) and one died due to sepsis., Interpretation: The BELIEF trial provides further evidence of benefit for the combined use of erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with NSCLC harbouring activating EGFR mutations., Funding: European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Roche., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: PARP plays an important role in DNA repair. Veliparib, a PARP inhibitor, enhances the efficacy of platinum compounds and has been safely combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint of this phase II trial determined whether addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) in previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Experimental Design: Patients were randomized 2:1 to carboplatin and paclitaxel with either veliparib or placebo. Veliparib (120 mg) or placebo was given on days 1 to 7 of each 3-week cycle, with carboplatin (AUC = 6 mg/mL/min) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m 2 ) administered on day 3, for a maximum of 6 cycles. Results: Overall, 158 were included (median age, 63 years; male 68%, squamous histology 48%). Median PFS was 5.8 months in the veliparib group versus 4.2 months in the placebo group [HR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-1.15; P = 0.17)]. Median overall survival (OS) was 11.7 and 9.1 months in the veliparib and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.54-1.18; P = 0.27). In patients with squamous histology, median PFS (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.26-1.12; P = 0.098) and OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.43-1.24; P = 0.24) favored veliparib treatment. Objective response rate was similar between groups (veliparib: 32.4%; placebo: 32.1%), but duration of response favored veliparib treatment (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.16-1.42; P = 0.18). Grade III/IV neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia were comparable between groups. Conclusions: Veliparib combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel was well-tolerated and demonstrated a favorable trend in PFS and OS versus chemotherapy alone. Patients with squamous histology had the best outcomes with veliparib combination. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 1937-44. ©2016 AACR ., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objectives: This two-part study evaluated trametinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in combination with anticancer agents. Inhibition of MEK, a downstream effector of KRAS, demonstrated preclinical synergy with chemotherapy in KRAS-mutant NSCLC cell lines. Part 1 of this study identified recommended phase 2 doses of trametinib combinations. Part 2, reported herein, evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of trametinib combinations in patients with NSCLC with and without KRAS mutations., Methods: Phase 1b evaluated trametinib plus docetaxel with growth factor support (trametinib, 2.0 mg once daily, and docetaxel, 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks) or pemetrexed (trametinib, 1.5 mg once daily, and pemetrexed, 500 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks). Eligibility criteria for the expansion cohorts included metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, known KRAS mutation status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or lower, and no more than two prior regimens., Results: The primary end point of overall response rate (ORR) was met for both combinations. A confirmed partial response (PR) was observed in 10 of the 47 patients with NSCLC who received trametinib plus docetaxel (21%). The ORR was 18% (four PRs in 22 patients) in those with KRAS wild-type NSCLC versus 24% (six PRs in 25 patients) in those with KRAS-mutant NSCLC. Of the 42 patients with NSCLC treated with trametinib plus pemetrexed, six (14%) had a PR; the ORR was 17% (four of 23) in patients with KRAS-mutated NSCLC versus 11% (two of 19) in KRAS wild-type NSCLC. Adverse events-most commonly diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue-were manageable., Conclusions: Trametinib-plus-chemotherapy combinations were tolerable. Clinical activity exceeding the ORRs previously reported with docetaxel or pemetrexed alone in KRAS-mutated NSCLC and meeting prespecified criteria was observed., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DP acts as an advisor for AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi and has received research funding from Novartis unrelated to the current trial. BB’s institution received a grant from Novartis for this study. HJMG’s institution has received payments from Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. P-JS has been involved in clinical trials for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. EQ has received personal fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche, has received grants from Amgen, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, and Roche, and has received non-financial support from Boehringer. CSB’s institution received a grant for this study from Novartis and CSB has received personal fees from Novartis. FB has received personal fees from Novartis. SN has received personal fees from Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. AU, PZ, AD’A, and BM are currently employees of Novartis. AD’A and BM were employees of GlaxoSmithKline during a portion of the study. AD’A and BM own stock in GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis and BM owns stock in Incyte and AstraZeneca. BEJ has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Clovis, Genentech, KEW Group, Merck, and Novartis, and shares of post-market revenue for an EGFR genotyping patent. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2016 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.)

Purpose: Tivantinib, a MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated increased anticancer activity in preclinical and early clinical studies when combined with erlotinib. Our study aimed to confirm efficacy and safety of the combination in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with one to two systemic regimens, including a platinum doublet, were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib 150 mg daily plus oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily (E + T) or erlotinib plus placebo (E + P) until disease progression. Tumor specimens were evaluated for EGFR and KRAS mutations, MET expression, and MET gene amplification. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), OS in molecular subgroups, and safety., Results: The study enrolled 1,048 patients and was discontinued for futility at the interim analysis. OS did not improve with E + T versus E + P (median OS, 8.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .81), even though PFS increased (median PFS, 3.6 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested OS improvement in patients with high MET expression (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.01). Most common adverse events occurring with E + T versus E + P were rash (33.1% v 37.3%, respectively), diarrhea (34.6% v 41.0%), asthenia or fatigue (43.5% v 38.1%), and neutropenia (grade 3 to 4; 8.5% v 0.8%)., Conclusion: E + T was well tolerated and increased PFS but did not improve OS in the overall nonsquamous NSCLC population., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Introduction: This study compared the efficacy of docetaxel alone vs. docetaxel plus cisplatin/carboplatin in resected NSCLC patients relapsing after preoperative, adjuvant, or perioperative platinum-based chemotherapy., Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus cisplatin/carboplatin (Arm A) or docetaxel alone (Arm B). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were response rate at 6 weeks, toxicity, quality of life, and overall survival (OS)., Results: From November 2007 to August 2012, 88 patients were enrolled. Due to an unexpectedly slow accrual, the trial was prematurely stopped. Adding platinum to docetaxel caused a non-significant increase in PFS. Median PFS was 8.0 months (95% CI: 5.3-10.4) for Arm A vs. 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.0-7.3) for Arm B (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.45-1.1, p=0.15). Median OS was 16.0 months (95% CI: 10.1-23.9) for Arm A vs. 12.4 months (95% CI: 8.2-19.6) for Arm B. In pre-planned subgroup analyses, a time to recurrence ≥12 months and non-squamous histology favorably influenced OS (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29-0.91, p=0.02 and HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.33-0.91, p=0.02, respectively). There were no unexpected adverse events, and Grade 3-4 toxicity was comparable in both groups., Conclusions: Our study failed to demonstrate significant PFS improvement with the docetaxel-platinum doublet compared to single-agent docetaxel. The 3.6-month improvement in OS with the cisplatin-based doublet proves, however, appealing and merits further investigation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Adjuvant chemotherapy with vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) improves survival in resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but has negative impact on quality of life (QoL). In advanced NSCLC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) exhibit comparable efficacy, with possibly superior QoL compared to VC. This trial investigated these regimens in the adjuvant setting., Methods: Patients with Stage IB to III NSCLC were eligible following standardized surgery. Overall, 136 patients were included, with 67 and 69 assigned to the GC and DC arms, respectively. Cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), Day [D] 1) plus gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), D1 and D8) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) D1) were administered for three cycles. Primary end-point was QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), with the study designed to detect a 10-point difference between arms. Overall survival, safety and cost were secondary end-points., Results: No between-group imbalance was observed in terms of patient characteristics. At inclusion, global health status (GHS) scores (/100) were 63.5 and 62.7 in GC and DC, respectively (P = 0.8), improving to 64.5 and 65.4 after 3 months (P = 0.8). No significant difference in functional or symptoms scores was observed between the arms except for alopecia. Grade 3/4 haematological and non-haematological toxicities were found in 33.8 and 21.7% (P = 0.11), and 33.8 and 26.1% (P = 0.33) of patients, in GC and DC, respectively. At 2 years, 92.9 and 89.8% of patients remained alive in GC and DC, respectively (P = 0.88)., Conclusions: DC and GC adjuvant chemotherapies for completely resected NSCLC were well tolerated and appear free of major QoL effects, and are therefore representing candidates for comparison with the standard VC regimen., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Surgical resection plus adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is considered standard care for stage II to III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its efficacy is limited, and it involves toxic risks, justifying patient-tailored treatment. Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) was shown to predict cisplatin-based chemotherapy response; EGFR mutations were predictive of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition response., Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized phase II trial enrolled 150 patients with completely resected non-squamous cell stage II or IIIA (non-N2) tumors. Patients in the control arm (n = 74) were treated with four standard-dose courses of cisplatin plus pemetrexed (CP). In the customized treatment arm (n = 76), patients with activated EGFR mutations received erlotinib 150 mg for 1 year; ERCC1-negative patients received four CP courses, whereas ERCC1-positive patients underwent follow-up. The trial sought to demonstrate the feasibility of customized adjuvant chemotherapy based on timely biomarker analysis within a 2-month postsurgery delay. Secondary objectives were tolerability, compliance with adjuvant therapy, and biomarker distribution., Results: In arm A, all patients received CP; in arm B, seven received erlotinib, 53 were administered CP, and 16 underwent follow-up. Median erlotinib exposure was 344 days. Of the 127 patients allocated to CP, 82% received four cycles with good tolerability. The overall success rate of the trial (ie, percentage of patients with complete biomarker status able to start adjuvant treatment within 2 months of surgery) was 80%., Conclusion: The primary end point of the trial was met, demonstrating the feasibility of a national biology-driven trial in the adjuvant NSCLC setting. Nevertheless, the phase III part was canceled because of the unreliability of the ERCC1 immunohistochemical readouts.

Purpose: Increased hepatocyte growth factor/MET signaling is associated with poor prognosis and acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -targeted drugs in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether dual inhibition of MET/EGFR results in clinical benefit in patients with NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients with recurrent NSCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive onartuzumab plus erlotinib or placebo plus erlotinib; crossover was allowed at progression. Tumor tissue was required to assess MET status by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET-positive (MET IHC diagnostic positive) populations; additional end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety., Results: There was no improvement in PFS or OS in the ITT population (n = 137; PFS hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; P = .69; OS HR, 0.80; P = .34). MET-positive patients (n = 66) treated with erlotinib plus onartuzumab showed improvement in both PFS (HR, .53; P = .04) and OS (HR, .37; P = .002). Conversely, clinical outcomes were worse in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab plus erlotinib (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.82; P = .05; OS HR, 1.78; P = .16). MET-positive control patients had worse outcomes versus MET-negative control patients (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.71; P = .06; OS HR, 2.61; P = .004). Incidence of peripheral edema was increased in onartuzumab-treated patients., Conclusion: Onartuzumab plus erlotinib was associated with improved PFS and OS in the MET-positive population. These results combined with the worse outcomes observed in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab highlight the importance of diagnostic testing in drug development.

Introduction: In the phase III AVAPERL trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer receiving bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance after first-line induction had a significant progression-free survival benefit relative to those treated with single-agent bevacizumab maintenance but with an increase in grade ≥3 adverse events. Here, we compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between AVAPERL maintenance arms., Methods: Patient-reported outcomes were collected at designated intervals from preinduction to final visits. HRQOL was assessed using the self-administered European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the Quality of Life Lung Cancer-Specific Module 13. Differences in scores of 10 points or more between arms were above the minimum important difference threshold and considered clinically meaningful., Results: During induction, patient-reported coughing symptoms improved slightly, whereas fatigue and appetite loss scores worsened relative to preinduction baseline. During maintenance, changes in mean global health status and the majority of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Quality of Life Lung Cancer-Specific Module 13 subscale scores did not differ between trial arms by the minimum important difference defining clinically meaningful (better or worse) patient-reported outcomes. Exceptions were patient-reported role functional status, fatigue symptoms and appetite loss symptoms (favoring bevacizumab), and pain in arm or shoulder symptoms (favoring bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance), which differed by clinically meaningful amounts at more than one maintenance assessment., Conclusions: In AVAPERL, HRQOL remained relatively stable throughout maintenance and was generally similar in both arms. Despite an increase in adverse event rates, the addition of pemetrexed to bevacizumab maintenance resulted in similar stabilization of disease symptoms with improved efficacy outcomes.

Purpose: Maintenance therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but few studies have compared active agents in this setting. AVAPERL evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed as continuation maintenance treatment., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received first-line bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those achieving response or stable disease were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to maintenance bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment., Results: In total, 376 patients received induction treatment, 71.9% achieved disease control, and 67.3% were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, with 125 and 128 receiving single-agent bevacizumab and bevacizumab plus pemetrexed treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the bevacizumab plus pemetrexed arm (median, 3.7 v 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; P < .001) per a stratified model. The PFS benefit extended across age, performance status, smoking history, and induction response (stable disease v partial response) subgroups. Any grade, grade ≥ 3, and serious adverse events occurred more often with bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: In an unselected population of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC who had achieved disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit compared with bevacizumab alone. The combination was well tolerated.

Purpose: Ipilimumab, which is an anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin., Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity., Conclusion: Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.

Introduction: The aim of this multicenter phase II trial was to evaluate the combination of oral vinorelbine and cisplatin with radiotherapy (RT) after cisplatin-docetaxel induction chemotherapy (CT) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated, inoperable, histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, with performance status ≤ 1 and weight loss ≤ 10% received two cycles of induction CT with cisplatin (75 mg/m) and docetaxel (75 mg/m) every 3 weeks. Patients with a tumor response or stabilization continued to receive cisplatin (80 mg/m) and oral vinorelbine (40 mg/m) on days 1 and 8 for two cycles, with concomitant thoracic RT (2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk, and total dose 66 Gy)., Results: Fifty-six patients were enrolled. All patients (n = 38) who received CT-RT were assessable for the tumor response. There were no complete responses. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the response rates were 32.1% after induction CT and 41.1% after CT-RT. The median progression-free and overall survival times were 9.2 months (95% confidence interval: 7-14) and 20.8 months (95% confidence interval: 13.7-24.1), respectively. Adverse effects of RT-CT were grades 3 to 4 neutropenia (four patients) and grade 3 esophageal toxicity (one patient). No treatment-related deaths occurred., Conclusion: The oral vinorelbine-cisplatin combination with concurrent RT is feasible and has a favorable risk-benefit ratio in stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC.

Introduction: Aflibercept (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] trap), a recombinant fusion protein, blocks the activity of VEGF-A and placental growth factor and has demonstrated activity in pretreated patients with lung cancer in a phase I trial. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous aflibercept in patients with platinum- and erlotinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma., Methods: An open-label, single arm, multicenter trial was conducted, with the primary end point of response rate (modified RECIST). Additional endpoints included safety, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Patients with platinum- and erlotinib-resistant lung adenocarcinoma were eligible. Aflibercept 4.0 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks was administered until progression of disease or intolerable toxicity., Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled; 89 were evaluable for response. Median age was 60 years, 41% were men with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1/2 in 35/55/9% of patients. The overall response rate was 2.0%, (95% confidence interval, 0.2-7.2%). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months, and overall was survival 6.2 months. Six- and 12-month survival rates were 54 and 29%, respectively. A median of four cycles was administered (range 1-22). Common grade 3/4 toxicities included dyspnea (21%), hypertension (23%), and proteinuria (10%). Two cases of grade 5 hemoptysis were reported, and one case each of tracheoesophageal fistula, decreased cardiac ejection fraction, cerebral ischemia, and reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy., Conclusions: Aflibercept has minor single agent activity in heavily pretreated lung adenocarcinoma, and is well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicities. Further studies evaluating aflibercept in lung cancer, in combination with chemotherapy and other targeted therapies, are ongoing.

Introduction: We examined the efficacy of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIA/B or IV) non-small cell lung cancer in a double-blinded, randomized, phase II study., Methods: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles (day 8 in cycle 1) plus oral enzastaurin (250 mg two times per day; combination arm) or placebo (pemetrexed arm). Both arms received supplementation with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. An interim analysis was conducted to determine whether efficacy would warrant a phase III study., Results: The interim analysis showed no evidence of improved progression-free survival with enzastaurin. At final analysis (N = 160, 80 in each arm), baseline characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (3.0 months, p = 0.544) or overall survival (9.6 months in combination arm and 7.4 months in pemetrexed arm, p = 0.171). Drug-related serious adverse events included cerebrovascular accident, palpitations, and renal failure (n = 1, each) in combination arm and neutropenic sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and panniculitis (n = 1, each) in pemetrexed arm. Nonhematologic drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were higher with the combination, specifically leukopenia (6.3% versus 0%), neutropenia (15.2% versus 5.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.9% versus 1.3%). Of the 26 deaths reported on-study or within 30 days of discontinuation (10 in combination arm and 16 in pemetrexed arm), none were drug related., Conclusion: The combination regimen of enzastaurin and pemetrexed is well tolerated but does not improve efficacy over pemetrexed and placebo as second-line treatment of unselected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: Non-platinum regimens have been proposed as an alternative to the platinum-based combinations for treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. However, conflicting results were reported., Methods: Meta-analysis of phase III trials randomizing platinum-based versus non-platinum combinations as first-line chemotherapy with 1-year survival rate as a primary endpoint. Fourteen trials have been identified. Experimental arms were gemcitabine/vinorelbine (n=4), gemcitabine/taxane (n=7), gemcitabine/epirubicin (n=1), paclitaxel/vinorelbine (n=1), and gemcitabine/ifosfamide (n=1). The comparator was a doublet of a platinum compound plus a third generation agent for all but two studies (triplets). Updated data were available for 13 studies. The Peto and Yusuf method was used to generate odds ratios (OR). All tests are two-sided., Results: A statistical heterogeneity was detected when the 13 studies were analyzed. Considering that current guidelines recommend platinum-based doublets as standard therapy we therefore limited the meta-analysis to the set of 11 phase III studies which used a platinum-based doublet (2298 and 2304 patients in platinum-based and non-platinum arms, respectively). No significant heterogeneity was detected in this consistent group of studies. Patients treated with a platinum-based regimen benefited from a statically significant reduction in the risk of death at 1 year (OR: 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.99; p=0.044) and a lower risk of being refractory to chemotherapy (OR: 0.87, 0.73-0.99; p=0.049). Forty-four (1.9%) and 29 (1.3%) toxic-related deaths were reported for platinum-based and non-platinum regimens, respectively (OR: 1.53; 0.96-2.49, p=0.08). An increased risk of grade 3-4 gastro-intestinal and hematological toxicity for patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy was statistically demonstrated. There was no statically significant increase in risk of febrile neutropenia, OR=1.23 (0.94-1.60, p=0.063)., Conclusion: A platinum-based doublet induced a statically significant reduction in the risk of death when compared with non-platinum chemotherapy without inducing an unacceptable increase in toxicity.

Lung cancer is still actually a leading cause of death in industrial countries, while the major etiologic agent, the tobacco smoke, is clearly identified. Primary or secondary prevention's strategies are frequently unsuccessful. The main survival chance is an early diagnosis of the disease. Efforts in the lung cancer screening have to be continued. Therapeutic strategies improved but progress in terms of survey are disappointing. Hopes relies on new drugs development coming from fundamental research, for whom first clinical trials are ongoing.