Search

Objectives: IMbrella A is a Phase III extension study that allowed rollover from Roche/Genentech-sponsored atezolizumab trials, including IMpower133, a Phase I/III trial of first-line atezolizumab or placebo plus carboplatin/etoposide in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. We report outcomes from an exploratory analysis of IMpower133 with extended time-to-event data for patients who rolled over to IMbrella A., Materials and Methods: IMpower133 patients could roll over to IMbrella A to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously every three weeks if they continued to receive atezolizumab at IMpower133 closure or were in survival follow-up after atezolizumab discontinuation. Overall survival and safety were assessed; only serious adverse events and AEs of special interest were collected in IMbrella A., Results: Eighteen of 26 eligible patients rolled over to IMbrella A. At clinical cutoff (March 16, 2023), median follow-up in the atezolizumab plus carboplatin/etoposide arm (IMpower133 and IMbrella A) was 59.4 months. The three-, four-, and five-year overall survival (95 % CI) estimates were 16 % (11 %-21 %), 13 % (8 %-18 %), and 12 % (7 %-17 %), respectively. In IMbrella A, serious adverse events occurred in three patients (16.7 %), and one adverse event of special interest was reported (grade two hypothyroidism)., Conclusion: This long-term analysis of patients from IMbrella A previously enrolled in IMpower133 provides the first report of five-year overall survival outcomes in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line cancer immunotherapy and chemotherapy. While limited by small patient numbers and lack of long-term data for the IMpower133 control arm, exploratory overall survival analyses in patients treated with atezolizumab plus carboplatin/etoposide compared favorably with historical data with chemotherapy alone. NCT03148418., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: All authors report editorial support funded by the Sponsor. Martin Reck reports receiving consulting fees, honoraria and travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Mirati, Merck, MSD, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and Regeneron; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Sanofi and Daiichi Sankyo. Rafal Dziadziuszko reports receiving honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Pfizer; and materials from Novartis. Shunichi Sugawara reports receiving grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical; and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharma, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono Pharmaceutical. Steven Kao reports receiving grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca; honoraria from AstaZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Beigene, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and travel support from MSD. Maximilian Hochmair reports receiving honoraria from MSD, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Amgen. Florian Huemer declares no conflict of interest. Gilberto de Castro, Jr reports receiving consulting fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Jannsen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo; travel support from Roche, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Novartis. Libor Havel declares no conflict of interest. Reyes Bernabé Caro reports receiving an investigational grant from Roche; honoraria from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Amgen, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; and participation in a data safety monitoring or advisory board for Takeda, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. György Losonczy and Jong-Seok Lee declare no conflict of interest. Dariusz M. Kowalski reports participation on an advisory board and consultancy for Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Zoran Andric declares no conflict of interest. Raffaele Califano reports receiving grants (to institution) from Roche and MSD; consulting fees from Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Roche, MSD, and AstraZeneca; membership in the EORTC lung cancer group and ESMO educational publication working group; and stock or stock options in The Christie Private Care and Supportive Care UK. Andrea Veatch, Gregory Gerstner, and Marta Batus declare no conflicts of interest. Stefanie Morris reports employment with and stock or stock options in Roche. Monika Kaul, Vaikunth Cuchelkar, Huafei Li, Bradford J. Danner, and Barzin Y. Nabet report employment with Roche. Stephen V. Liu reports receiving grants from AbbVie, Alkermes, Elevation Oncology, Ellipses, Genentech, Gilead, Merck, Merus, Nuvalent, RAPT, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catalyst, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Elevation Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Guardant Health, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Merus, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and participation on a data safety monitoring for Candel Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.)

Background: Enhancing tumor-specific T-cell immunity by inhibiting programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-programmed death 1 (PD-1) signaling has shown promise in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Combining checkpoint inhibition with cytotoxic chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect and improve efficacy., Methods: We conducted this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer who had not previously received treatment. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carboplatin and etoposide with either atezolizumab or placebo for four 21-day cycles (induction phase), followed by a maintenance phase during which they received either atezolizumab or placebo (according to the previous random assignment) until they had unacceptable toxic effects, disease progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or no additional clinical benefit. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population., Results: A total of 201 patients were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab group, and 202 patients to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 13.9 months, the median overall survival was 12.3 months in the atezolizumab group and 10.3 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.91; P=0.007). The median progression-free survival was 5.2 months and 4.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide was consistent with the previously reported safety profile of the individual agents, with no new findings observed., Conclusions: The addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower133 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02763579 .).

Background: Bavituximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets phosphatidylserine in the presence of β2 glycoprotein 1 (β2GP1) to exert an antitumor immune response. This phase III trial determined the efficacy of bavituximab combined with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Key eligibility criteria included advanced non-squamous NSCLC with disease progression after treatment with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, evidence of disease control after at least two cycles of first-line therapy, presence of measurable disease, ECOG performance status 0 or 1, adequate bone marrow and organ function, and no recent history of clinically significant bleeding. Eligible patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive up to six 21-day cycles of docetaxel plus either weekly bavituximab 3 mg/kg or placebo until progression or toxicity. The primary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: A total of 597 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 10.5 months in the docetaxel + bavituximab arm and was 10.9 months in the docetaxel + placebo arm (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.88-1.29; P = 0.533). There was no difference in progression-free survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.82-1.22; P = 0.990). Toxicities were manageable and similar between arms. In subset analysis, among patients with high baseline serum β2GP1 levels ≥200 µg/ml, a nonsignificant OS trend favored the bavituximab arm (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.63-1.06; P = 0.134). Among patients who received post-study immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, OS favored the bavituximab arm (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.81; P = 0.006)., Conclusions: The combination of bavituximab plus docetaxel is not superior to docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. The addition of bavituximab to docetaxel does not meaningfully increase toxicity. The potential benefit of bavituximab observed in patients with high β2GP1 levels and in patients subsequently treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors requires further investigation., Clinical Trial Number: NCT01999673.

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

Introduction: Necitumumab, a second-generation, recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 epidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the phase 3 SQUIRE trial (NCT00981058), increased survival benefit for patients randomized to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin compared with those who received gemcitabine-cisplatin. Here we characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability results., Methods: A total of 1093 patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive necitumumab (800 mg absolute dose intravenously [IV]) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gemcitabine = 1250 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8; cisplatin = 75 mg/m(2) IV on day 1) or gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (every 21 days) for up to six cycles. Patients receiving necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin without disease progression continued necitumumab until progression. HRQoL was measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), and the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire. Efficacy and LCSS outcomes were analyzed using the baseline maximum severity score of the LCSS. Tolerability was measured in terms of exposure to the study treatment and adverse events. Hospitalization rates were collected., Results: Most patients in both study arms similarly maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comparable LCSS and European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire assessments. Patients with a higher baseline LCSS had a greater survival benefit on the necitumumab arm. Chemotherapy exposure was similar in both treatment arms; 51% of patients on the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin arm continued on single-agent necitumumab. The most frequent grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (6.1% versus 7.9%) and thrombocytopenia (3.2% versus 4.3%) in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin arms, respectively. Hospitalizations were slightly higher with necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (36.4%) than with gemcitabine-cisplatin (34.0%)., Conclusions: The addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated, did not negatively affect HRQoL or toxicity, and particularly benefited patients with more severe baseline symptoms or lower HRQoL., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: MUC1 is a tumour-associated antigen expressed by many solid tumours, including non-small-cell lung cancer. TG4010 is a modified vaccinia Ankara expressing MUC1 and interleukin 2. In a previous study, TG4010 combined with chemotherapy showed activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and the baseline value of CD16, CD56, CD69 triple-positive activated lymphocytes (TrPAL) was shown to be potentially predictive of TG4010 efficacy. In this phase 2b part of the phase 2b/3 TIME trial, we further assess TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy and use of the TrPAL biomarker in this setting., Methods: In this phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial, we recruited previously untreated patients aged 18 years or older with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without a known activating EGFR mutation and with MUC1 expression in at least 50% of tumoural cells. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by an external service provider to subcutaneous injections of 10(8) plaque-forming units of TG4010 or placebo from the beginning of chemotherapy every week for 6 weeks and then every 3 weeks up to progression, discontinuation for any reason, or toxic effects, stratified according to baseline value of TrPAL (≤ or > the upper limit of normal [ULN]) and, in addition, a dynamic minimisation procedure was used, taking into account chemotherapy regimen, histology, addition or not of bevacizumab, performance status, and centre. Patients, site staff, monitors, the study funder, data managers, and the statistician were masked to treatment identity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed every 6 weeks, to validate the predictive value of the TrPAL biomarker. If patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN had a Bayesian probability of more than 95% that the true hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was less than 1, and if those with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN had a probability of more than 80% that the true HR for progression-free survival was more than 1, the TrPAL biomarker would be validated. We did primary analyses in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in those who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one valid post-baseline safety assessment. Monitors, site staff, and patients are still masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01383148., Findings: Between April 10, 2012, and Sept 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 222 patients (TG4010 and chemotherapy 111 [50%]; placebo and chemotherapy 111 [50%]). In the whole population, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 5·4-6·7) in the TG4010 group and 5·1 months (4·2-5·9) in the placebo group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·98]; one-sided p=0·019). In patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·75 (0·54-1·03); the posterior probability of the HR being less than 1 was 98·4%, and thus the primary endpoint was met. In patients with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·77 (0·42-1·40); the posterior probability of the HR being greater than 1 was 31·3%, and the primary endpoint was not met. We noted grade 1-2 injection-site reactions in 36 (33%) of 110 patients in the TG4010 group versus four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group. We noted no grade 3 or 4 nor serious adverse events deemed to be related to TG4010 only. Four (4%) patients presented grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to TG4010 and other study treatments (chemotherapy or bevacizumab) versus 11 (10%) in the placebo group. No serious adverse event was related to the combination of TG4010 with other study treatments. The most frequent severe adverse events were neutropenia (grade 3 29 [26%], grade 4 13 [12%] in the TG4010 group vs grade 3 22 [21%], grade 4 11 [10%] in the placebo group), anaemia (grade 3 12 [11%] vs grade 3 16 [15%]), and fatigue (grade 3 12 [11%], grade 5 one [1%] vs grade 3 13 [12%]; no grade 4 events)., Interpretation: TG4010 plus chemotherapy seems to improve progression-free survival relative to placebo plus chemotherapy. These data support the clinical value of the TrPAL biomarker in this clinical setting; because the primary endpoint was met, the trial is to continue into the phase 3 part., Funding: Transgene, Avancées Diagnostiques pour de Nouvelles Approches Thérapeutiques (ADNA), and OSEO., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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.)

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.)

Active oncotherapy, combination chemotherapy of lung cancer is accompanied with many side effects which may impair patients' quality of life and compromise the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Most side effects of chemotherapy are preventable or treatable with optimal supportive care which enhances success in patient care and treatment. The aim of this review is to summarize the most important conditions that may be associated with combined chemotherapy of lung cancer from the practical point of view.

Purpose: This phase III trial was conducted to test whether the novel vascular disrupting agent ASA404 (vadimezan), when combined with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, improves survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, stratified by sex and tumor histology, were randomly assigned 1:1 to paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6.0) with or without ASA404 (1,800 mg m(2)), given intravenously once every 3 weeks for six cycles followed by maintenance ASA404 or placebo. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: One thousand two hundred ninety-nine patients were randomly assigned. The trial was stopped for futility at interim analysis. At final analysis, there was no difference in OS seen between ASA404 (n = 649) and placebo (n = 650) arms: median OS was 13.4 and 12.7 months respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.19; P = .535). Similarly, no OS difference was seen in the histologic (squamous or nonsquamous) and sex (male or female) strata. Median PFS was 5.5 months in both arms (HR, 1.04; P = .727), while ORR was 25% in both arms (P = 1.0). Overall rate of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between the ASA404 and placebo arms. Grade 4 neutropenia (27% v 19%) and infusion site pain (10% v 0.5%) were reported more frequently in the ASA404 arm., Conclusion: The addition of ASA404 to carboplatin and paclitaxel, although generally well tolerated, failed to improve frontline efficacy in advanced NSCLC.

Platinum-based chemotherapies are widely used in the treatment of lung cancer. However, little is known about their effect in the expression of certain tissue biomarkers. We have studied the ERCC1 (excision repair cross-complementation group 1) expression in tissue samples of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Fifty lung cancer tissue blocks of 25 patients (15 males, 10 females) were studied. They included 25 bronchoscopic biopsies (14 squamous cell carcinomas and 11 adenocarcinomas) together with their corresponding surgical biopsies after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immunohistochemistry was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues to study the expression of ERCC1. Staining scores (0-300) were calculated by multiplying the percentage of positive tumor cells (0-100) by the staining intensity (0-3). All but one bronchosopic squamous cell carcinoma tissues (13/14) expressed ERCC1. Four of these cases became negative after neoadjuvant therapy, and in 8 cases the level of expression decreased. In the adenocarcinoma group all but one bronchosopic tissues (10/11) expressed ERCC1. Six of these cases became negative after neoadjuvant therapy, and in 4 cases the level of expression decreased. Comparison of staining scores before and after chemotherapy revealed more pronounced decrease in adenocarcinomas and in female patients. There was no newly expressed ERCC1-positive case in the surgical biopsy group. The results of the present study suggest that platinum-based chemotherapy affects the expression of tissue biomarker (ERCC1) which may have predictive value, and probably induces a selection of tumor cells with more aggressive phenotype. This knowledge might be of importance when designing treatment protocols for non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Anemia is common among patients with malignant tumors, due to the disease and chemotherapy. Anemia decreases patient's quality of life, and worsens the dose intensity of chemotherapy. The aim of this retrospective data-analysis was to determine the rate of transfusions and the maintenance of chemotherapeutic dose intensity in 9 small cell lung cancer patients receiving beta-erythropoietin, due to anemia observed after the first cycle of chemotherapy. The mean pre-treatment hemoglobin concentration of the patients was 116.67+/-8.17 g/L (mean+/-SD). The mean pre-erythropoietin hemoglobin concentration at baseline was 103.11+/-7.52 g/L. Six cycles of platinum compounds and etoposide were used. The post-treatment hemoglobin concentration of patients was 110.11+/-5.37 g/L (p = 0,028 vs. baseline). During these 54 chemotherapeutic cycles, only 2 patients needed transfusion, each of them once. According to our experience, the use of beta-erythropoietin in 9 anemic small cell lung cancer patients resulted in a low rate of transfusions and maintenance of cytotoxic treatment dose intensity. The adequate use of beta-erythropoietin is of great help to the physician in the management of small cell lung cancer patients.