Search

Objectives: CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826) evaluated first-line nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 1% or < 1% and no EGFR/ALK alterations. However, many patients randomized to chemotherapy received subsequent immunotherapy. Here, overall survival (OS) and relative OS benefit of nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab were adjusted for potential bias introduced by treatment switching., Materials and Methods: Treatment-switching adjustment analyses were conducted following the NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 16, for CheckMate 227 Part 1 OS data from treated patients (database lock, July 2, 2019). Inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) was used in the base-case analysis; other methods were explored as sensitivity analyses., Results: Of 1166 randomized patients, 391 (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 185 (PD-L1 < 1%) patients received nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab; 387 (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 183 (PD-L1 < 1%) patients received chemotherapy, with 29.3-month minimum follow-up. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, 169/387 (43.7%; PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 66/183 (36.1%; PD-L1 < 1%) switched to immunotherapy poststudy. Among treated patients, median OS was 17.4 months with nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus 14.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.95) in the PD-L1 ≥ 1% subgroup and 17.1 versus 12.4 months (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) in the PD-L1 < 1% subgroup. After treatment-switching adjustment using IPCW, the HR (95% CI) for OS for nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was reduced to 0.68 (0.56-0.83; PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 0.53 (0.40-0.69; PD-L1 < 1%). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results., Conclusion: Treatment-switching adjustments resulted in a greater estimated relative OS benefit with first-line nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Martin Reck reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi; travel support for meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi; and Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board participation for Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi. Luis Paz-Ares reports receiving leadership fees from ALTUM Sequencing and Genomica; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; speaker's bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, and Roche; and research funding to his institution from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kura Oncology, MSD, PharmaMar, and Pfizer. Tuli De, Mark Edmondson-Jones and Georgia Yates are employees of Paraxel which received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb for the current work. Roberto Zoffoli reports receiving stock options as a former employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. Yong Yuan is an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. Adam Lee, Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhary, Nebibe Varol, and John R. Penrod are employees of and have stock ownership in Bristol Myers Squibb. All authors received support for the present manuscript in the form of funding, medical writing, and article processing charges from Bristol Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; P < 0.001], including those with a history of brain metastases (HR 0.69). Patients with TP53 co-mutations, detectable circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline liver metastases, and those without ctDNA clearance on treatment have poor prognoses. We evaluated outcomes in these high-risk subgroups., Patients and Methods: This analysis included patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC randomized to amivantamab-lazertinib (n = 429) or osimertinib (n = 429) in MARIPOSA. Pathogenic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of baseline blood ctDNA with Guardant360 CDx. Ex19del and L858R ctDNA in blood was analyzed at baseline and cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1) with Biodesix droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)., Results: Baseline ctDNA for NGS of pathogenic alterations was available for 636 patients (amivantamab-lazertinib, n = 320; osimertinib, n = 316). Amivantamab-lazertinib improved median PFS (mPFS) versus osimertinib for patients with TP53 co-mutations {18.2 versus 12.9 months; HR 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.87]; P = 0.003} and for patients with wild-type TP53 [22.1 versus 19.9 months; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.52-1.07)]. In patients with EGFR-mutant, ddPCR-detectable baseline ctDNA, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib [20.3 versus 14.8 months; HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53-0.86); P = 0.002]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved mPFS versus osimertinib in patients without ctDNA clearance at C3D1 [16.5 versus 9.1 months; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.87); P = 0.015] and with clearance [24.0 versus 16.5 months; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48-0.87); P = 0.004]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib among randomized patients with [18.2 versus 11.0 months; HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.91); P = 0.017] and without baseline liver metastases [24.0 versus 18.3 months; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91); P = 0.004]., Conclusions: Amivantamab-lazertinib effectively overcomes the effect of high-risk features and represents a promising new standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We report long-term outcomes from a pooled analysis of patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) less than 1% enrolled in phase III studies of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy., Methods: This exploratory pooled analysis included individual patient data from the KEYNOTE-189 global (NCT02578680) and Japan extension (NCT03950674) studies of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations and the KEYNOTE-407 global (NCT02775435) and People's Republic of China extension (NCT03875092) studies of metastatic squamous NSCLC. Patients received pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin in KEYNOTE-189 and pembrolizumab or placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel in KEYNOTE-407. PD-L1 TPS was centrally assessed using PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx (Agilent Technologies, Carpinteria, CA)., Results: Overall, 442 patients were included in this analysis (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, n = 255; chemotherapy, n = 187). The median follow-up was 60.7 (range, 49.9‒72.0) months. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51‒0.79) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.54‒0.81) versus chemotherapy. The 5-year overall survival rates (95% CI) were 12.5% (8.6%‒17.3%) versus 9.3% (5.6%‒14.1%). Grades 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 59.1% of patients for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and 61.3% for chemotherapy., Conclusion: With approximately 5 years of follow-up, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided clinically meaningful and durable improvements in survival outcomes versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS less than 1%. These results continue to support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard of care in this patient population., Clinicaltrials: gov, NCT02578680 (KEYNOTE-189 global), NCT03950674 (KEYNOTE-189 Japan extension), NCT02775435 (KEYNOTE-407 global), NCT03875092 (KEYNOTE-407 People's Republic of China extension)., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Gadgeel receives consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Takeda/Ariad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Gilead, Bayer, Daiichi, Mirati, Janssen, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint, Lilly, and Regeneron; is the Division Head for Hematology/Oncology and the Associate Director for Patient Experience and Clinical Care, Henry Ford Cancer Institute/Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Michigan; received study funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; and participated in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rodríguez-Abreu has received personal fees or honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Gilead, Incyte, Sanofi, Regeneron, Takeda, and Novartis; received funding for travel expenses from Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and Novartis; received study funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; and participated in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Regeneron, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, and Lilly. Dr. Halmos reports receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, MSD, BMS, Advaxis, Amgen, AbbVie, Daiichi, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Beigene, and Janssen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Apollomics, Janssen, Takeda, MSD, BMS, Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Arcus, Merus, and Daiichi; and participated in a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for BMS, TPT, and Apollomics. Dr. Garassino has personal financial interests in AstraZeneca, Abion, MSD International GmbH, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S.p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Mirati, Daiichi-Sankyo, Regeneron, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, Blueprint, Janssen, Sanofi, AbbVie, BeiGenius, Oncohost, Medscape, Gilead, and Io Biotech; has institutional financial interests in Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer (MISP), AstraZeneca, MSD International GmbH, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S.p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Incyte, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Tiziana, Foundation Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; receives other assistance from AIRC, AIFA, Italian Moh, and TRANSCAN; research fundings from Horizon 2020; study funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Incyte, Takeda, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Janssen, Exelixis, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Amgen; has consulting or advisory role with Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Janssen, Regeneron, Bayer, AbbVie, Mirati, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Abion; receives honoraria from MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Regeneron, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Medscape; participated in the Speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Mirati, and Daiichi-Sankyo/AstraZeneca; and received funding for travel and accommodation from Pfizer, Roche, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Kurata receives honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; Ono Pharmaceutical; Bristol-Myers Squibb; AstraZeneca; Chugai; Eli Lilly; Pfizer; and Nipponkayaku; and received research funding from Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceutical, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Ms. Jensen, Dr. Shamoun, and Dr. Rajagopalan are employees and owns stock in Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Dr. Paz-Ares received grants to institution from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and Pfizer; received consulting fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, Mirati, GSK, Janssen, Takeda, and Daichii Sankyo; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck Serono, and Mirati., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pembrolizumab is a first-line therapy for certain patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Combining pembrolizumab with other immunotherapies may enhance tumor cell killing and clinical outcomes. Epacadostat is a selective inhibitor of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1, an immuno-regulatory enzyme involved in tryptophan to kynurenine metabolism that inhibits T cell-mediated immune responses., Methods: In this randomized phase II study, patients with metastatic NSCLC expressing high (≥ 50%) programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 21 days plus oral epacadostat 100 mg twice daily (combination) or matching placebo (control). The primary objective was objective response rate (ORR); secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and safety/tolerability., Results: 154 patients were randomized (77 per group). Median (range) follow-up was 6.8 months (0.1-11.4) and 7.0 months (0.2-11.9) in the combination and control groups, respectively Confirmed ORR was similar between groups (combination: 32.5%, 95% CI 22.2-44.1; control: 39.0%, 95% CI 28.0-50.8; difference: - 6.5, 95% CI - 21.5 to 8.7; 1-sided P = 0.8000). Median (range) DOR was 6.2 months (1.9 + to 6.5 +) and not reached (1.9 + to 8.6 +) in the combination and control groups, respectively. Although not formally tested, median PFS was 6.7 and 6.2 months for the combination and control groups, respectively, and median OS was not reached in either group. Circulating kynurenine levels increased from C1D1 to C2D1 (P < 0.01) in the control group and decreased from C1D1 to C2D1 (P < 0.01) in the combination group but were not normalized in most patients. The most frequent serious adverse events (AEs) (≥ 2%) were pneumonia (4.0%), anemia (2.7%), atelectasis (2.7%) and pneumonitis (2.7%) in the combination group and pneumonia (3.9%), pneumonitis (2.6%) and hypotension (2.6%) in the control group. Two deaths due to drug-related AEs were reported, both in the control group., Conclusions: Addition of epacadostat to pembrolizumab therapy for PD-L1-high metastatic NSCLC was generally well tolerated but did not demonstrate an improved therapeutic effect. Evaluating higher doses of epacadostat that normalize kynurenine levels when given in combination with checkpoint inhibitors may be warranted., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03322540. Registered 10/26/2017., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Amivantamab has been approved for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) exon 20 insertions who have had disease progression during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Phase 1 data showed the safety and antitumor activity of amivantamab plus carboplatin-pemetrexed (chemotherapy). Additional data on this combination therapy are needed., Methods: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy., Results: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions., Conclusions: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer is a therapeutically challenging disease. After more than two decades without clinical progress, the addition of programmed cell death protein 1 axis blockade to platinum-based chemotherapy has demonstrated sustained overall survival benefit and represents the current standard of care in the first-line setting. Despite this benefit, resistance emerges relatively rapidly in virtually all patients. Although newer treatments are being incorporated in the relapse setting, marked therapeutic resistance is typically observed in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), underscoring the need of developing more effective therapies in this setting. Notably, recent progress in the understanding of the molecular biology of SCLC might bring possibilities toward molecularly informed therapeutic strategies for patients with SCLC, which could have a significant impact for improving outcomes in this disease. Here, we review current treatment options and recent progress made in the first-line and relapsed SCLC, including the role of biomarkers and new evolving therapeutic strategies., Competing Interests: Jon ZugazagoitiaHonoraria: AstraZeneca Spain, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, NanoString Technologies, Guardant HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Novartis, Novartis, Guardant HealthSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, NanoString Technologies, Guardant HealthResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche/Genentech Luis Paz-AresLeadership: Genomica, ALTUM SequencingHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Novartis, Celgene, Amgen, Sanofi, Ipsen, Servier, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda, Mirati Therapeutics, Daiichi SankyoSpeakers' Bureau: MSD Oncology, BMS, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck SeronoResearch Funding: BMS (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Kura Oncology (Inst), MSD (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, TakedaOther Relationship: Novartis, Ipsen, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi, Roche, Amgen, Merck, RocheNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate whether the addition of a limited course (two cycles) of chemotherapy to this combination would further enhance the clinical benefit., Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 103 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system via permuted blocks (block size of four) to nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) combined with histology-based, platinum doublet chemotherapy (intravenously every 3 weeks for two cycles; experimental group), or chemotherapy alone (every 3 weeks for four cycles; control group). Randomisation was stratified by tumour histology, sex, and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in all treated patients. Results reported here are from a pre-planned interim analysis (when the study met its primary endpoint) and an exploratory longer-term follow-up analysis. This study is active but no longer recruiting patients, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03215706., Findings: Between Aug 24, 2017, and Jan 30, 2019, 1150 patients were enrolled and 719 (62·5%) randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (n=361 [50%]) or four cycles of chemotherapy alone (n=358 [50%]). At the pre-planned interim analysis (median follow-up 9·7 months [IQR 6·4-12·8]), overall survival in all randomly assigned patients was significantly longer in the experimental group than in the control group (median 14·1 months [95% CI 13·2-16·2] vs 10·7 months [9·5-12·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [96·71% CI 0·55-0·87]; p=0·00065). With 3·5 months longer median follow-up (median 13·2 months [IQR 6·4-17·0]), median overall survival was 15·6 months (95% CI 13·9-20·0) in the experimental group versus 10·9 months (9·5-12·6) in the control group (HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·80]). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (in 24 [7%] patients in the experimental group vs 32 [9%] in the control group), anaemia (21 [6%] vs 50 [14%]), diarrhoea (14 [4%] vs two [1%]), increased lipase (22 [6%] vs three [1%]), and asthenia (tjree [1%] vs eight [2%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 106 (30%) patients in the experimental group and 62 (18%) in the control group. Seven (2%) deaths in the experimental group (acute kidney failure, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, hepatitis, pneumonitis, sepsis with acute renal insufficiency, and thrombocytopenia; one patient each) and six (2%) deaths in the control group (anaemia, febrile neutropenia, pancytopenia, pulmonary sepsis, respiratory failure, and sepsis; one patient each) were treatment related., Interpretation: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in overall survival versus chemotherapy alone and had a favourable risk-benefit profile. These data support this regimen as a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone., Methods: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m 2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m 2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872., Findings: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each])., Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Immunotherapy-based approaches are standard first-line treatments for advanced/metastatic lung cancer or for chemoradiotherapy consolidation in locally advanced disease. Uncertainty on how to treat patients at disease progression prompted us to develop a consensus document on post-immunotherapy options in Spain for patients with advanced wild-type lung adenocarcinoma., Methods: After extensive literature review, a 5-member scientific committee generated 33 statements in 4 domains: general aspects (n = 4); post-durvalumab in locally advanced disease (n = 6); post-first-line immunotherapy ± chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic disease (n = 11); and post-first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced/metastatic disease (n = 12). A panel of 26 lung cancer experts completed 2 Delphi iterations through an online platform rating their degree of agreement/disagreement (first-round scale 1-5 and second-round scale 1-4, 1 = strongly disagree, 4/5 = strongly agree) for each statement. Second-round consensus: ≥ 70% of responses were in categories 1/2 (disagreement) or 3/4 (agreement)., Results: Consensus was reached for 2/33 statements in the first Delphi round and in 29/31 statements in the second round. Important variables informing treatment at disease progression with an immunotherapy-based treatment include: disease aggressiveness, previous treatment, accumulated toxicity, progression-free interval, PD-L1 expression, and tumour mutational burden. A platinum-based chemotherapy should follow a first-line immunotherapy treatment without chemotherapy. Treatment with docetaxel + nintedanib may be appropriate post-durvalumab in refractory patients or following progression to first-line chemotherapy + immunotherapy, or second-line chemotherapy after first-line immunotherapy, or first-line chemotherapy in some patients with low/negative PD-L1 expression, or second-line immunotherapy after first-line chemotherapy., Conclusions: To support decision making following progression to immunotherapy-based treatment in patients with advanced wild-type lung adenocarcinoma, a consensus document has been developed.

Background: CheckMate 171 (NCT02409368) is an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial of nivolumab in previously treated advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), conducted as part of a post-approval commitment to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We report outcomes from this trial., Methods: Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2 and disease progression during/after ≥1 systemic treatment (≥1 being platinum-based chemotherapy) for advanced or metastatic disease were treated with nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was incidence of grade 3-4 treatment-related select adverse events (AEs). Other end-points included overall survival (OS) and safety., Results: Of 811 patients treated, 103 had ECOG PS 2; 278 were aged ≥70 years and 125 were ≥75 years of age. Minimum follow-up was ~18 months. Safety was similar across populations; the most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs in all treated patients were diarrhoea (1%), increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT, 1%), pneumonitis (0.7%), colitis (0.6%) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST, 0.5%). Median OS was similar in all treated patients and those aged ≥70 and ≥75: 10.0 months, 10.0 months and 11.2 months, respectively. Median OS was 5.2 months in patients with ECOG PS 2., Conclusion: These results suggest that nivolumab is well tolerated and active in patients with advanced, relapsed squamous NSCLC, including the elderly, with OS outcomes consistent with phase 3 data. In patients with ECOG PS 2, nivolumab had similar tolerability, but outcomes were worse, as expected in this difficult-to-treat, poor prognosis population., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02409368., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement E.F. reports receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, priME Oncology, Roche, Samsung, Springer, Takeda, and Touchtime, outside the submitted work. A.A. reports receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, and Pfizer, grants from Celgene, and grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche, outside the submitted work. T.C. reports receiving personal fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/GSK, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier, outside the submitted work. M.C., K.L., M.S., E.C., M.A.G., D.I., and J.M. have nothing to disclose. R.C. reports receiving grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. R.G. reports receiving personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. L. P-A. reports receiving personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Blueprint, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda, and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. R.D. reports receiving travel grants from Amgen and Roche, receiving travel grants and holding advisory position for Pfizer, and acting in an advisory role for Ely Lilly and Novartis, outside the submitted work. J.J. reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda, and receiving travel support from Roche, outside the submitted work. W.A. reports receiving non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from AstraZeneca and Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen and Roche, outside the submitted work. J.P.V.M. reports receiving travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and institutional grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J.W. reports receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Ignyta, Loxo, Roche, and Takeda, and grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. A.L. and A.A. were employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and A.A. has received company stock from Bristol-Myers Squibb. S.P. reports receiving personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elsevier, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, OncLive, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, and Tesaro, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Therapeutic options for cancer patients have increased in the last years, although drugs resistance problem remains unresolved. Genetic background in individual susceptibility to cancer treatment could influence the therapy responses. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of using blood 4 genes (AEG-1, BRCA-1, REV3L and TYMS) expression levels as a predictor of the efficacy of pemetrexed therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: Sixteen patients from the Medical Oncology Department at "12 de Octubre" Hospital, were included in the study. Total mRNA was isolated from blood samples, and gene expression was analyzed by RT-qPCR. A panel of lung tumor cell lines were used in cell proliferation tests and siRNA-mediated silencing assays., Results: Similarity between blood gene expression levels and protein expression in matched tumor tissue was observed in 54.54% (REV3L) and 81.81% (TYMS) of cases. Gene expression of REV3L and TYMS in blood correlated directly and inversely, respectively, with progression-free survival and overall survival in the patients from our cohort. In tumor cell lines, the knockdown of REV3L conferred resistance to pemetrexed treatment, and the TYMS silencing increased the pemetrexed sensitivity of tumor cells., Conclusions: The use of peripheral blood samples for expression quantification of interest genes is an affordable method with promising results in the evaluation of response to pemetrexed treatment. Therefore, expression levels of REV3L and TYMS genes might be used as predictive biomarkers in advanced NSCLC patients.

Purpose: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-407 study, the addition of pembrolizumab to carboplatin-paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate in patients with previously untreated metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with little impact on severe toxicity. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-407., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 4 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for an additional 31 cycles. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer Module 13 (QLQ-LC13). Key PRO endpoints were change from baseline to weeks 9 and 18 (during and after platinum therapy) in the QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score and time to deterioration in the composite endpoint of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Two-sided, nominal P values are provided., Results: A total of 554 and 553 patients completed ≥ 1 QLQ-C30 or ≥ 1 QLQ-LC13 assessment, respectively. GHS/QoL score improved for the pembrolizumab-combination group (least squares [LS] mean [95% CI] change from baseline: week 9, 1.8 [-0.9 to 4.4]; week 18, 4.3 [1.7 to 6.9]) and deteriorated in the placebo-combination group (week 9, -1.8 [-4.4 to 0.7]; week 18, -0.57 [-3.3 to 2.2]). Between-group differences were improved for the pembrolizumab-combination group (difference in LS mean scores: week 9, 3.6 [95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9], nominal P = .0337; week 18, 4.9 [1.4 to 8.3], nominal P = .0060). Median time to deterioration in cough, chest pain, or dyspnea was not reached in either group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06]; nominal P = .125)., Conclusion: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy maintained or improved HRQoL measurements relative to baseline and improved HRQoL versus chemotherapy alone at weeks 9 and 18. These results support use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic squamous NSCLC.

Background: Dual blockade of the EGFR and VEGF pathways in EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is supported by preclinical and clinical data, yet the approach is not widely implemented. RELAY assessed erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) standard of care, plus ramucirumab, a human IgG1 VEGFR2 antagonist, or placebo in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC., Methods: This is a worldwide, double-blind, phase 3 trial done in 100 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years or older in Japan and Taiwan) at the time of study entry, had stage IV NSCLC, with an EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del) or exon 21 substitution (Leu858Arg) mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no CNS metastases. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) plus either intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo once every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done by an interactive web response system with a computer-generated sequence and stratified by sex, geographical region, EGFR mutation type, and EGFR testing method. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02411448, and is ongoing for long-term survival follow-up., Findings: Between Jan 28, 2016, and Feb 1, 2018, 449 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment with ramucirumab plus erlotinib (n=224) or placebo plus erlotinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up was 20·7 months (IQR 15·8-27·2). At the time of primary analysis, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group (19·4 months [95% CI 15·4-21·6]) than in the placebo plus erlotinib group (12·4 months [11·0-13·5]), with a stratified hazard ratio of 0·59 (95% CI 0·46-0·76; p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 159 (72%) of 221 patients in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group versus 121 (54%) of 225 in the placebo plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group were hypertension (52 [24%]; grade 3 only) and dermatitis acneiform (33 [15%]), and in the placebo plus erlotinib group were dermatitis acneiform (20 [9%]) and increased alanine aminotransferase (17 [8%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 65 (29%) of 221 patients in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group and 47 (21%) of 225 in the placebo plus erlotinib group. The most common serious adverse events of any grade in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group were pneumonia (seven [3%]) and cellulitis and pneumothorax (four [2%], each); the most common in the placebo plus erlotinib group were pyrexia (four [2%]) and pneumothorax (three [1%]). One on-study treatment-related death due to an adverse event occurred (haemothorax after a thoracic drainage procedure for a pleural empyema) in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group., Interpretation: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with placebo plus erlotinib in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Safety was consistent with the safety profiles of the individual compounds in advanced lung cancer. The RELAY regimen is a viable new treatment option for the initial treatment of EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC., Funding: Eli Lilly., (Copyright © 2019 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: In patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response vs. platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the phase III LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials, and significantly improved PFS, time to treatment failure and objective response vs. gefitinib in the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial. We report post-hoc analyses of efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in afatinib long-term responders (LTRs) in these trials., Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIB/IV EGFRm + NSCLC randomized to afatinib in LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7 were included in the analysis. Patients treated with afatinib for ≥ 3 years were defined as LTRs., Results: In LUX-Lung 3, LUX-Lung 6, and LUX-Lung 7, 24/229 (10%), 23/239 (10%) and 19/160 (12%) afatinib-treated patients were LTRs. Baseline characteristics were similar to the study populations, except for the proportions of women (LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6 only; 92/78% vs. 64% overall) and Del19-positive patients (63-79% vs. 49-58% overall). Median treatment duration among LTRs was 50, 56 and 42 months, and median PFS was 49.5, 55.5, and 42.2 months in LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7, respectively. Median overall survival could not be estimated. Frequency of afatinib dose reduction was consistent with the LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7 overall populations. PROs were stable in LTRs, with slight improvements after 3 years of afatinib treatment vs. baseline scores., Conclusions: In the LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7 trials, 10-12% of afatinib-treated patients were LTRs. Long-term afatinib treatment was independent of tolerability-guided dose adjustment and had no detrimental impact on safety or PROs., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: With the availability of several epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), sequential therapy could potentially render EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer a chronic disease in some patients. In this retrospective analysis of EGFR mutation-positive (Del19/L858R) patients receiving first-line afatinib in LUX-Lung 3, 6, and 7, we assessed uptake of, and outcomes following, subsequent therapies including the third-generation EGFR TKI, osimertinib., Methods: Post-progression therapy data were prospectively collected during follow-up. Molecular testing of tumours at progression/discontinuation of afatinib was not mandatory. Duration of subsequent therapies, and survival following osimertinib, were calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimates., Results: Among 553 patients who discontinued first-line afatinib, second-, third- and fourth-line therapy was administered in 394 (71%), 265 (48%), and 156 (28%) patients. The most common post-progression therapy was platinum-based chemotherapy (46%). Thirty-seven patients received subsequent osimertinib, 10 as second-line treatment. Median progression-free survival on afatinib in these 37 patients was 21.9 months. Median duration of osimertinib therapy was 20.2 months; median overall survival was not reached after a median follow-up of 4.7 years., Conclusions: Most patients treated with first-line afatinib received subsequent therapy. Although limited by sample size, enrichment, and a retrospective nature, data from patients who received sequential afatinib and osimertinib are encouraging, warranting further investigation., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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.)

Purpose: CheckMate 568 is an open-label phase II trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab as first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed the association of efficacy with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor mutational burden (TMB)., Patients and Methods: Two hundred eighty-eight patients with previously untreated, recurrent stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in patients with 1% or more and less than 1% tumor PD-L1 expression. Efficacy on the basis of TMB (FoundationOne CDx assay) was a secondary end point., Results: Of treated patients with tumor available for testing, 252 patients (88%) of 288 were evaluable for PD-L1 expression and 98 patients (82%) of 120 for TMB. ORR was 30% overall and 41% and 15% in patients with 1% or greater and less than 1% tumor PD-L1 expression, respectively. ORR increased with higher TMB, plateauing at 10 or more mutations/megabase (mut/Mb). Regardless of PD-L1 expression, ORRs were higher in patients with TMB of 10 or more mut/Mb (n = 48: PD-L1, ≥ 1%, 48%; PD-L1, < 1%, 47%) versus TMB of fewer than 10 mut/Mb (n = 50: PD-L1, ≥ 1%, 18%; PD-L1, < 1%, 5%), and progression-free survival was longer in patients with TMB of 10 or more mut/Mb versus TMB of fewer than 10 mut/Mb (median, 7.1 v 2.6 months). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 29% of patients., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab was effective and tolerable as a first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic NSCLC. TMB of 10 or more mut/Mb was associated with improved response and prolonged progression-free survival in both tumor PD-L1 expression 1% or greater and less than 1% subgroups and was thus identified as a potentially relevant cutoff in the assessment of TMB as a biomarker for first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab.

Introduction: There is substantial evidence for the oncogenic effects of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) in many types of cancer, including lung cancer, but the role of this receptor has not been addressed specifically in lung adenocarcinoma., Methods: We performed FGFR1 and EGFR overexpression and co-overexpression assays in adenocarcinoma and in inmortalized lung cell lines, and we also carried out surrogate and interaction assays. We performed monotherapy and combination EGFR/FGFR inhibitor sensitivity assays in vitro and in vivo in cell line- and patient-derived xenografts. We determined FGFR1 mRNA expression in a cohort of patients with anti-EGFR therapy-treated adenocarcinoma., Results: We have reported a cooperative interaction between FGFR1 and EGFR in this context, resulting in increased EGFR activation and oncogenic signaling. We have provided in vitro and in vivo evidence indicating that FGFR1 expression increases tumorigenicity in cells with high EGFR activation in EGFR-mutated and EGFR wild-type models. At the clinical level, we have shown that high FGFR1 expression levels predict higher resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib in a cohort of patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor-treated EGFR-mutated and EGFR wild-type lung adenocarcinoma. Dual EGFR and FGFR inhibition in FGFR1-overexpressing, EGFR-activated models shows synergistic effects on tumor growth in vitro and in cell line- and patient-derived xenografts, suggesting that patients with tumors bearing these characteristics may benefit from combined EGFR/FGFR inhibition., Conclusion: These results support the extended the use of EGFR inhibitors beyond monotherapy in the EGFR-mutated adenocarcinoma setting in combination with FGFR inhibitors for selected patients with increased FGFR1 overexpression and EGFR activation., (Copyright © 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This phase III study compared clinical efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 215 with bevacizumab reference product (RP) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ABP 215 or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every three weeks for 6 cycles. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel every three weeks for ≥4 and ≤6 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR); clinical equivalence was confirmed if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio was within the margin of 0.67 to 1.5. Secondary endpoints included risk difference of ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetics, adverse events (AEs), and incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were monitored., Results: A total of 820 patients were screened; 642 were randomized to ABP 215 ( n = 328) and bevacizumab ( n = 314). Overall, 128 (39.0%) and 131 (41.7%) patients in the ABP 215 and bevacizumab groups, respectively, had objective responses [ORR risk ratio: 0.93 (90% CI, 0.80-1.09)]. In the ABP 215 and bevacizumab group, 308 (95.1%) and 289 (93.5%) patients, respectively, had at least 1 AE; 13 (4.0%) and 11 (3.6%) experienced a fatal AE. Anti-VEGF toxicity was low and comparable between treatment groups. At week 19, median trough serum drug concentration was 132 μg/mL (ABP 215 group) and 129 μg/mL (bevacizumab group). No patient tested positive for neutralizing antibodies., Conclusions: ABP 215 is similar to bevacizumab RP with respect to clinical efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. The totality of evidence supports clinical equivalence of ABP 215 and bevacizumab., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

A substantial proportion of patients with nononcogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has 'aggressive disease', as reflected in short time to progression or lack of disease control with initial platinum-based chemotherapy. Recently, clinical correlates of aggressive disease behavior during first-line therapy have been shown to predict greater benefit from addition of nintedanib to second-line docetaxel in adenocarcinoma NSCLC. Positive predictive effects of aggressive disease have since been reported with other anti-angiogenic agents (ramucirumab and bevacizumab), while such features may negatively impact on outcomes with nivolumab in nonsquamous NSCLC with low PD-L1 expression. Based on a review of the clinical data, we recommend aggressive nonsquamous NSCLC should be defined by progression within <6-9 months of first-line treatment initiation.

Personalized patient-precise medicine is being gradually incorporated into clinical practice for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The EGFR pathway has been explored as a druggable target with monoclonal antibodies such as cetuximab or necitumumab. Necitumumab is a humanized IgG1 anti-EGFR. In the Phase III SQUIRE trial, necitumumab used as first-line therapy in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine showed a reduction in risk-of-death and a better disease control rate in advanced squamous NSCLC. Thus, necitumumab is now a new first-line treatment option in squamous NSCLC. However, further biomarker research is needed to improve patient selection. Moreover, necitumumab associated with other immunotherapy and targeted agents is currently an important area of research that may yield better outcomes for NSCLC patients.

Introduction: Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that combining epigenetic agents with checkpoint inhibitors can potentially improve outcomes in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 2 trial examined second-line pembrolizumab + CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: Patients with one prior line of platinum-containing therapy were randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to CC-486 or placebo, on days 1-14, in combination with pembrolizumab on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety., Results: Among 100 patients randomised (pembrolizumab + CC-486: 51; pembrolizumab + placebo: 49), most were male (57.0%), were white (87.0%) and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 (68.0%). No significant difference in PFS was observed between the pembrolizumab + CC-486 and pembrolizumab + placebo arms (median, 2.9 and 4.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.374; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.926-2.038; P = 0.1789). Median OS was 11.9 months versus not estimable (HR, 1.375; 90% CI, 0.830-2.276; P = 0.2968); ORR was 20% versus 14%. Median treatment duration was shorter (15.0 versus 24.1 weeks), and the number of cycles was lower (5.0 versus 7.0) with pembrolizumab + CC-486 versus pembrolizumab + placebo. No new safety signals for CC-486 or pembrolizumab were detected. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the pembrolizumab + CC-486 arm, particularly gastrointestinal, potentially impacting treatment feasibility., Conclusions: No improvement in PFS was observed with pembrolizumab + CC-486 versus pembrolizumab + placebo. Decreased treatment exposure due to adverse events may have impacted efficacy with pembrolizumab + CC-486., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Standard first-line therapy for metastatic, squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is platinum-based chemotherapy or pembrolizumab (for patients with programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] expression on ≥50% of tumor cells). More recently, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was shown to significantly prolong overall survival among patients with nonsquamous NSCLC., Methods: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 559 patients with untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles; all the patients also received carboplatin and either paclitaxel or nanoparticle albumin-bound [nab]-paclitaxel for the first 4 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival., Results: After a median follow-up of 7.8 months, the median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.8) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent regardless of the level of PD-L1 expression. The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months (95% CI, 6.2 to 8.3) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 5.7) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 69.8% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 68.2% of the patients in the placebo-combination group. Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was more frequent in the pembrolizumab-combination group than in the placebo-combination group (13.3% vs. 6.4%)., Conclusions: In patients with previously untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-407 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02775435 .).

In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the most frequent oncogene driver mutation in Western countries is Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS), and KRAS-mutant NSCLC is associated with smoking. There are various sources of biological heterogeneity of KRAS-mutant NSCLC, including different genotypes that may be associated with specific clinical outcomes, the presence of other co-mutations that exhibit different biological features and drug sensitivity patterns, and mutant allelic content. The efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC is generally poor and numerous novel therapeutic strategies have been developed. These approaches include targeting KRAS membrane associations, targeting downstream signalling pathways, the use of KRAS synthetic lethality, direct targeting of KRAS, and immunotherapy. Of these, immunotherapy may be one of the most promising treatment approaches for patients with KRAS-mutant NSCLC. Recent data also suggest the potential for distinct efficacy of immunotherapy according to the presence of other co-mutations. In view of the biological heterogeneity of KRAS-mutant NSCLC, treatment will likely need to be individualised and, in future, may require the use of rational combinations of treatment, many of which are currently under investigation., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Upregulated expression and aberrant activation of the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) are found in lung cancer, making EGFR a relevant target for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is associated with modest improvement in overall survival in patients with squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC) who have a significant unmet need for effective treatment options. While there is evidence that using EGFR gene copy number, EGFR mutation, and EGFR protein expression as biomarkers can help select patients who respond to treatment, it is important to consider biomarkers for response in patients treated with combination therapies that include EGFR mAbs., Design: Randomized trials of EGFR-directed mAbs cetuximab and necitumumab in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or antiangiogenic therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, including SqCLC, were searched in the literature. Results of associations of potential biomarkers and outcomes were summarized., Results: Data from phase III clinical trials indicate that patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein (H-score of ≥200) and/or gene copy numbers of EGFR (e.g. ≥40% cells with ≥4 EGFR copies as detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization; gene amplification in ≥10% of analyzed cells) derive greater therapeutic benefits from EGFR-directed mAbs. Biomarker data are limited for EGFR mAbs used in combination with immunotherapy and are absent when used in combination with antiangiogenic agents., Conclusions: Therapy with EGFR-directed mAbs in combination with chemotherapy is associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein and/or have increased EGFR gene copy number. These data support validating the role of these as biomarkers to identify those patients who derive the greatest clinical benefit from EGFR mAb therapy. However, data on biomarkers for EGFR-directed mAbs combined with immunotherapy or antiangiogenic agents remain limited.

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising efficacy for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 1 trial, and tumor mutational burden has emerged as a potential biomarker of benefit. In this part of an open-label, multipart, phase 3 trial, we examined progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations per megabase)., Methods: We enrolled patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated with chemotherapy. Those with a level of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy; those with a tumor 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. Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay., Results: Progression-free survival among patients with a high tumor mutational burden was significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42.6% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 13.2% with chemotherapy, and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.8) (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 45.3% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 26.9% with chemotherapy. The benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over chemotherapy was broadly consistent within subgroups, including patients with a PD-L1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%. The rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 31.2% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.1% with chemotherapy. ical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826 .)., Conclusions: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC and a high tumor mutational burden, irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceut

Objectives: To assess the effect of long-term pemetrexed maintenance therapy on patients' renal function., Methods: In the PARAMOUNT phase III trial (NCT 00789373), pemetrexed was compared with placebo as maintenance treatment in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer patients who completed 4 cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction therapy. To evaluate changes in renal function during pemetrexed continuation maintenance treatment, we retrospectively analyzed changes in serum creatinine (sCr), treatment-emergent adverse events, dose delays and treatment discontinuations associated with impaired renal function., Results: Creatinine clearance ≥45 mL/min was required before the start of any cycle. Patients on pemetrexed maintenance had a significantly higher percentage maximum increase in sCr over baseline versus placebo for the range of ≥10% to ≥90% increase (p < .05). The risk of experiencing renal events leading to dose delays and discontinuations was higher with higher increases in sCr but reversible in most patients. sCr increases of ≥30% and ≥40% were associated with gender (female), age (<70 years) and longer exposure to pemetrexed compared with placebo. Sixteen (4%) pemetrexed patients and 1 (1%) placebo patient discontinued treatment due to drug-related renal events; 13/16 (81%) of those pemetrexed patients had sCr increases ≥30% and 7/13 (54%) had pre-existing conditions and/or were receiving nephrotoxic drugs., Conclusions: The appearance of renal events leading to dose delays and/or treatment discontinuations was associated with sCr increase of at least 30%. However, it was difficult to identify patients at a higher risk of treatment discontinuation due to a drug-related renal event based only on changes in pre-maintenance laboratory values.

Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumours harbour activating mutations within the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) frequently derive significant clinical and radiographic benefits from treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). As such, prospective identification of EGFR mutations is now the standard of care worldwide. However, acquired therapeutic resistance to these agents invariably develops. Over the past 10 years, great strides have been made in defining the molecular mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance in an effort to design rational strategies to overcome this acquired drug resistance. Approximately 60% of patients with acquired resistance to the EGFR TKIs (erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib) develop a new mutation within the drug target. This mutation-T790M-has been shown to alter drug binding and enzymatic activity of the mutant EGF receptor. Less common mechanisms of acquired resistance include MET amplification, ERBB2 amplification, transformation to small-cell lung cancer, and others. Here, we present a condensed overview of the literature on EGFR-mutant NSCLC, paying particular attention to mechanisms of drug resistance, recent clinical trial results, and novel strategies for identifying and confronting drug resistance, while also striving to identify gaps in current knowledge. These advances are rapidly altering the treatment landscape for EGFR-mutant NSCLC, expanding the armamentarium of available therapies to maximize patient benefit.

Introduction/background: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b/2 study we assessed the efficacy/safety of rilotumumab or ganitumab combined with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)., Patients and Methods: In the phase 1b study, patients received rilotumumab 15 mg/kg or ganitumab 18 mg/kg with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin. In the phase 2 study, patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive placebo, rilotumumab, or ganitumab with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin. Chemotherapy was administered for ≤ 6 cycles; rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo was then continued as maintenance therapy. The primary end points were incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; phase 1b) and overall survival (OS; phase 2). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety., Results: In the phase 1b study (n = 28), 1 patient treated with ganitumab experienced a DLT (Grade 4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia lasting ≥ 7 days). In the phase 2 study, 185 patients were enrolled (placebo, n = 61; rilotumumab, n = 62; ganitumab, n = 62). Median OS was 10.8, 12.2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.25; P = .384), and 10.7 (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.63-1.41; P = .787) months, in placebo, rilotumumab, or ganitumumab arms, respectively. Median PFS was 5.4, 5.4 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.71-1.54; P = .797), and 5.5 (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55; P = .780) months, respectively. Adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in 11 (19%), 10 (16%), and 7 (12%) patients, respectively. Serum biomarker analysis showed improved survival for patients with baseline hepatocyte growth factor levels below the median in the rilotumumab arm., Conclusion: Although the combination of rilotumumab or ganitumab with chemotherapy was tolerable, overall outcomes were not improved in patients with ES-SCLC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The REVEL study demonstrated improved efficacy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with ramucirumab plus docetaxel, independent of histology. This exploratory analysis characterized the treatment effect in REVEL patients who were refractory to prior first-line treatment., Materials and Methods: Refractory patients had a best response of progressive disease to first-line treatment. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed for OS and PFS, and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used for response. QoL was assessed with the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale. Sensitivity analyses were performed on subgroups of the intent-to-treat population with limited time on first-line therapy., Results: Of 1253 randomized patients in REVEL, 360 (29%) were refractory to first-line treatment. Baseline characteristics were largely balanced between treatment arms. In the control arm, median OS for refractory patients was 6.3 versus 10.3 months for patients not meeting this criterion, demonstrating the poor prognosis of refractory patients. Median OS (8.3 vs. 6.3 months; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08), median PFS (4.0 vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88), and ORR (22.5% vs. 12.6%) were improved in refractory patients treated with ramucirumab compared to placebo, without new safety concerns or further deteriorating patient QoL., Conclusions: The effect of ramucirumab in refractory patients is similar to that in the intent-to-treat population. The benefit/risk profile for refractory patients suggests that ramucirumab plus docetaxel is an appropriate treatment option even in this difficult-to-treat population., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This phase 2 portion of a phase 1/2 study examined the efficacy and safety of LY2603618, a selective checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitor, combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin (LY+Pem+Cis) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label study (NCT01139775) enrolled patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized (2:1) to LY+Pem+Cis or pemetrexed and cisplatin (Pem+Cis). Induction therapy comprised four 21-day cycles of 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed and 75mg/m 2 cisplatin on Day 1 (both arms) and 275mg LY2603618 on Day 2 (LY+Pem+Cis arm). Maintenance therapy comprised 500mg/m 2 pemetrexed on Day 1 (both arms) and 275mg LY2603618 on Day 2 (LY+Pem+Cis arm) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Enrollment was permanently halted before target enrollment was met due to a greater number of thromboembolic events in the LY+Pem+Cis arm. Sixty-two patients were enrolled (LY+Pem+Cis, n=39; Pem+Cis, n=23). Bayesian and frequentist analysis demonstrated superior PFS in the LY+Pem+Cis arm vs the Pem+Cis arm (median [90% confidence interval]: LY+Pem+Cis, 4.7 months [4.-7.1]; Pem+Cis, 1.5 months [1.3-2.9]; P=0.022). Seven patients in the LY+Pem+Cis arm (vs 0 in the Pem+Cis arm) experienced serious thromboembolic events: pulmonary embolism (n=5), ischemic stroke (n=1), and cerebrovascular accident (n=1). Although the primary endpoint was met, the combination of LY2603618+Pem+Cis will not be further developed for treating advanced nonsquamous NSCLC due to the potential increased risk of thromboembolic events with this combination. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01139775., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background To determine the recommended dose (RD) of a combination of PM01183 and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Forty-five patients received escalating doses of PM01183/gemcitabine on Days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (d1,8 q3wk) following a standard 3 + 3 design. Results PM01183 3.5 mg flat dose (FD)/gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 was the highest dose level tested. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were mostly hematological and resulted in the expansion of a lower dose level (PM01183 3.5 mg FD/gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 ); 19 patients at this dose level were evaluable but >30% had DLT and >20% had febrile neutropenia. No DLT was observed in 11 patients treated at PM01183 3.0 mg FD/gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , which was defined as the RD. This regimen was feasible and tolerable with manageable toxicity; mainly grade 3/4 myelosuppression. Non-hematological toxicity comprised fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and transaminases increases. Fifteen (33%) patients received ≥6 cycles with no cumulative hematological toxicity. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed no evidence of drug-drug interaction. Nine of 38 patients had response as per RECIST (complete [3%] and partial [21%]), for an overall response rate (ORR) of 24% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 12-40%). Eleven patients (29%) had disease stabilization ≥4 months. Responses were durable (median of 8.5 months): overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.7-6.5 months). Conclusions The RD for this combination is PM01183 3.0 mg FD (or 1.6 mg/m 2 )/gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 d1,8 q3wk. This schedule is well tolerated and has antitumor activity in several advanced solid tumor types.

Purpose The phase III OAM4971g study (METLung) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary end points included median progression-free survival, overall response rate, biomarker analysis, and safety. Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled (onartuzumab, n = 250; placebo, n = 249). Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P = .067), with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm (130 [52%] v 114 [46%]). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months (stratified HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .92), and overall response rate was 8.4% and 9.6% for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively. Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab; patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment (HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0% and 51.2% of patients, with serious AEs in 33.9% and 30.7%, for experimental versus control arms, respectively. Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes, with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm, compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction: We present the treatment rationale and study design for the RELAY study (NCT02411448 ). This phase Ib/III study will assess safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the combination of ramucirumab with erlotinib in previously untreated stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer patients with an activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation., Patients and Methods: The study is being conducted in approximately 120 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia and is currently open for enrollment. In part A (phase Ib), approximately 12 patients will receive ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks with erlotinib (150 mg) every day. Dose-limiting toxicity will be assessed during 2 cycles (4 weeks) of treatment. In part B (phase III), approximately 450 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ramucirumab or placebo every 2 weeks with erlotinib daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other withdrawal criteria are met. The primary end point is progression-free survival, on the basis of investigator assessment. Secondary end points include overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, duration of response, safety, and quality of life., Conclusion: Erlotinib with ramucirumab combination was chosen because the addition of an antiangiogenic agent, such as ramucirumab, would further improve the efficacy of erlotinib, which is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with activating EGFR mutations., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Tumor angiogenesis pathways have been identified as important therapeutic targets in non-small cell lung cancer. However, no biomarkers have been described as predictors of response to antiangiogenic therapy in these patients. In this study, plasma levels of VEGF, bFGF, E-selectin, and S-ICAM and gene expression profiles of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were analyzed before and after treatment. Values were correlated with clinicopathological characteristics and treatment response. Plasma factor levels were measured using commercially available ELISA kits. The TaqMan(®) human angiogenesis array was used to investigate the effect of treatment on gene expression profiles. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes and Gene Ontology enrichment analysis was performed for differentially expressed genes using WEB-based GEne SeT AnaLysis Toolkit. Our results suggest a benefit for patients with increased plasma levels of VEGF, E-selectin, and S-ICAM in the course of bevacizumab treatment. Also, we identified differentially expressed genes between paired blood samples from patients before and after treatment, and significantly perturbed pathways were predicted. These changes in gene expression and levels of plasma factors could be used to assess the effectiveness of antiangiogenic therapy, in addition to standard clinical and radiological evaluations.

This clinical trial summary provides the background and rationale for the JUNIPER study (NCT02152631). JUNIPER is a randomized study of abemaciclib (200 mg orally every 12 hours) with best supportive care (BSC) versus erlotinib (150 mg orally every 24 hours) with BSC in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have detectable Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations and whose disease has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and 1 other previous therapy, or who are not eligible for further chemotherapy. Approximately 550 patients will be randomized in a 3:2 ratio and stratified according to number of previous chemotherapy regimens (1 vs. 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs. 1), sex (male vs. female), and KRAS mutation (G12C vs. others). Erlotinib was chosen as the control arm, because it is the only agent indicated for second- and third-line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Treatment will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs, with assessments every 28 days, followed by short-term and long-term follow-up. The coprimary efficacy objectives of this study are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary objectives are overall response rate, changes in patient-reported pain and disease-related symptoms, changes in health status, resource utilization, safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. This design has 80% power to detect OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (type I error 0.045) and PFS HR of 0.67 (type I error 0.005). If the coprimary objectives (OS and PFS) are achieved, this study will provide a new alternative third-line treatment option for patients with NSCLC whose tumors have detectable KRAS mutations., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058., Findings: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations., Interpretation: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (CT) has been the mainstay of care of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) for years. Response rates are only observed, however, in about half of treated patients, and there are no reliable tools to prospectively identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy. The purpose of our study was to identify a gene expression profile predictive of CT response in mCRC. Whole genome expression analyses (Affymetrix GeneChip HG-U133 Plus 2.0) were performed in fresh frozen tumor samples of 37 mCRC patients (training cohort). Differential gene expression profiles among the two study conditions (responders versus non-responders) were assessed using supervised class prediction algorithms. A set of 161 differentially expressed genes in responders (23 patients; 62%) versus non-responders (14 patients; 38%) was selected for further assessment and validation by RT-qPCR (TaqMan Low Density Arrays (TLDA) 7900 HT Micro Fluidic Cards) in an independent multi-institutional cohort (53 mCRC patients). Seven of these genes were confirmed as significant predictors of response. Patients with a favorable predictive signature had significantly greater response rate (58% vs. 13%, p = 0.024), progression-free survival (61% vs. 13% at 1 year, HR = 0.32, p = 0.009) and overall survival (32 vs. 16 months, HR = 0.21, p = 0.003) than patients with an unfavorable gene signature. This is the first study to validate a gene-expression profile predictive of response to CT in mCRC patients. Larger and prospective confirmatory studies are required, however, in order to successfully provide oncologists with adequate tools to optimize treatment selection in routine clinical practice.

Background: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111., Findings: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group., Interpretation: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: MAPK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways play important roles in many tumors. In this study, safety, antitumor activity, and pharmacokinetics of buparlisib (pan class PI3K inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) were evaluated., Experimental Design: This open-label, dose-finding, phase Ib study comprised dose escalation, followed by expansion part in patients with RAS- or BRAF-mutant non-small cell lung, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer., Results: Of note, 113 patients were enrolled, 66 and 47 in dose-escalation and -expansion parts, respectively. MTD was established as buparlisib 70 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily [5/15, 33% patients with dose-limiting toxicities (DLT)] and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) buparlisib 60 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily (1/10, 10% patients with DLTs). DLTs included stomatitis (8/103, 8%), diarrhea, dysphagia, and creatine kinase (CK) increase (2/103, 2% each). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 73 patients (65%); mainly CK increase, stomatitis, AST/ALT (aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase) increase, and rash. For all (21) patients with ovarian cancer, overall response rate was 29% [1 complete response, 5 partial responses (PR)], disease control rate 76%, and median progression-free survival was 7 months. Minimal activity was observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (1/17 PR) and pancreatic cancer (best overall response was SD). Relative to historical data, buparlisib exposure increased and trametinib exposure slightly increased with the combination., Conclusions: At RP2D, buparlisib 60 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily shows promising antitumor activity for patients with KRAS-mutant ovarian cancer. Long-term tolerability of the combination at RP2D is challenging, due to frequent dose interruptions and reductions for toxicity., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction: In the PARAMOUNT ("A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Immediately Following Induction Treatment with Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer") trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) benefited from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin by extending survival, delaying disease progression, and maintaining quality of life (QoL). However, low-grade 1 or 2 toxicities during long-term maintenance treatment may become burdensome and impact QoL., Materials and Methods: Patients in this double-blind study (n = 539), who had completed 4 induction cycles (pemetrexed with cisplatin) without progressive disease (PD) and had an ECOG performance status of 0/1, were randomized 2:1 to pemetrexed maintenance (500 mg/m(2), day 1) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC until PD. Adverse events (by maximum Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] grade) and QoL (EuroQol 5-dimensional [EQ-5D] scale) were assessed., Results: A median of 4 maintenance cycles was administered (range, pemetrexed 1-44; mean ± SD 7.9 ± 8.3; placebo 1-38; mean ± SD 5.0 ± 5.2), with 28% of pemetrexed and 12% of placebo patients receiving ≥ 10 maintenance cycles. The pemetrexed dose intensity was 94%. More patients receiving pemetrexed (12%) than placebo discontinued because of possible drug-related CTCAEs (4%; P = .005). Overall, pemetrexed was associated with significantly more (P < .05) low-grade events (grade 1/2 nausea, grade 2 anemia, edema, and neutropenia) than placebo. Overall, the incidence of low-grade fatigue, anemia, and neutropenia decreased with long-term pemetrexed exposure; however, renal events increased across treatment arms. EQ-5D analyses demonstrated no treatment-by-time interaction or overall treatment differences between the 2 arms., Conclusion: PARAMOUNT demonstrated a low incidence of low-grade toxicities with long-term pemetrexed exposure without compromising QoL in patients with NS-NSCLC., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on first line/second and further lines of treatment in advanced disease., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: In this phase II study, patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive LY293111 (200 mg twice daily [200 LY293111] or 600 mg twice daily [600 LY293111]) or placebo for 7 days, followed by concurrent cisplatin (75 mg/m2; day 1) and gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2; days 1 and 8), every 21 days.The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, (PFS), with 75% power to detect 33% improvement compared with placebo (5 months)., Methods: Of 200 randomized patients, 195 were treated. Demographics were well balanced across treatment arms: 65% of the patients were men; median age was 62 years; 85% had stage IV disease; and patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (36%) or 1 (64%)., Results: The most frequent study drug-related toxicities were nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Response rates were similar across treatment arms (200 LY293111: 20%; 600 LY293111: 25%; placebo: 31%)., Conclusions: Median PFS (95% confidence interval) was not significantly different across treatment arms (200 LY293111: 4.6 months [3.2-5.0]; 600 LY293111: 5.6 months [4.1-6.8]; placebo: 6.0 months [5.2-7.5]). LY293111 combined with gemcitabine-cisplatin did not increase median PFS compared with placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Introduction: This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of conatumumab combined with paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC) as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients (aged >18 years) with previously untreated advanced or recurrent NSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 (stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and disease stage) to receive up to six 3-week cycles of PC combined with conatumumab (arm 1, 3 mg/kg; arm 2, 15 mg/kg) or placebo (arm 3) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00534027)., Results: Between August 8, 2007 and April 9, 2009, 172 patients were randomized (arm 1, n = 57; arm 2, n = 56; arm 3, n = 59). Median PFS was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-6.3) in arm 1 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI 0.57-1.24]; p = 0.41), 4.8 months (95% CI 3.2-6.5) in arm 2 (HR 0.93 [0.64-1.35]; p = 0.57), and 5.5 months (95% CI 4.3-5.7) in arm 3. There was an interaction between tumor histology and the effect of conatumumab on PFS (squamous HR 0.47 [0.23-0.94]; nonsquamous HR 1.08 [0.74-1.57]; interaction p = 0.039).The most common grade of three or more adverse events were neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. There was no evidence of pharmacokinetic interactions between conatumumab and PC. Of 158 patients assessable for FCGR3A polymorphisms, conatumumab treatment was associated with a trend toward longer overall survival (HR 0.72 [0.43-1.23]) among V-allele carriers (V/V or F/V; n = 54) but not among F-allele homozygotes (n = 34; HR 1.37 [0.66-2.86])., Conclusion: Although well tolerated, the addition of conatumumab to PC did not improve outcomes in unselected patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC.

Purpose: The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is a standard regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. A phase I/II study suggested that a three-drug regimen that included paclitaxel had greater antitumor activity and might improve survival., Patients and Methods: We conducted a randomized phase III study to compare paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) with GC in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and toxicity., Results: From 2001 to 2004, 626 patients were randomly assigned; 312 patients were assigned to PCG, and 314 patients were assigned to GC. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, the median OS was 15.8 months on PCG versus 12.7 months on GC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .075). OS in the subgroup of all eligible patients was significantly longer on PCG (3.2 months; HR, 0.82; P = .03), as was the case in patients with bladder primary tumors. PFS was not significantly longer on PCG (HR, 0.87; P = .11). Overall response rate was 55.5% on PCG and 43.6% on GC (P = .0031). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more thrombocytopenia and bleeding on GC than PCG (11.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respectively; P < .001)., Conclusion: The addition of paclitaxel to GC provides a higher response rate and a 3.1-month survival benefit that did not reach statistical significance. Novel approaches will be required to obtain major improvements in survival of incurable urothelial cancer.

Purpose: This study assesses the efficacy, toxicity and pharmacokinetic profile of trabectedin with or without prophylactic dexamethasone co-treatment in patients with recurrent advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS)., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to receive trabectedin as a 3-h infusion every 3 weeks with dexamethasone or placebo in the first cycle, with the alternate in the second cycle and with the patient's choice subsequently. Due to toxicity, the randomized design was modified to open-label to make dexamethasone mandatory and the initial dose (1,650 μg/m(2)) was reduced to 1,500 μg/m(2) and then to 1,300 μg/m(2)., Results: Forty-one patients were enrolled and 35 were evaluable for efficacy. One partial response and 18 disease stabilizations were found. The median PFS and OS were 2.1 and 10.2 months, respectively, with the 3- and 6-month PFS rates indicating activity in pretreated STS. Twenty-three and 27 patients developed transient asymptomatic grade 3/4 AST and ALT elevation, respectively, and 21 patients had grade 3/4 neutropenia. Dose reduction from 1,650 μg/m(2) to 1,300 μg/m(2) decreased the incidence of grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (26% vs. 0%), neutropenia (51% vs. 25%) and AST increase (76% vs. 25% of patients). Four patients died due to drug-related toxicities (3 with placebo). The total body clearance of trabectedin was 28% higher and half-life was 21% lower with dexamethasone compared to placebo, with no differences in volume of distribution., Conclusions: Trabectedin has confirmed activity in patients with pretreated STS. This study shows that co-treatment with dexamethasone improves the safety of trabectedin by reducing drug-induced hepatotoxicity and myelosuppression.