Search

Aim: To investigate changes in treatment patterns in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK (EU5) between 2018 and 2021. Methods: Cross-sectional data from an oncology database were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Of 5832 eligible patients, 88.4% had stage IV disease at diagnosis. Among patients receiving first-line treatment, 91.8% (1079 /1176) received the platinum-etoposide (PE) combination in 2018 which decreased to 42.3% (509/1203) by 2021. Usage of the PE-atezolizumab combination increased from 0 to 41.2% during the same timeframe. Topotecan monotherapy remained the most widely used second-line treatment regardless of patients' platinum sensitivity. Conclusion: The first-line standard of care for ES-SCLC has evolved in EU5 with the PE-atezolizumab/durvalumab combination gradually superseding PE usage.

Background: Selpercatinib, a highly selective potent and brain-penetrant RET inhibitor, was shown to have efficacy in patients with advanced RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a nonrandomized phase 1-2 study., Methods: In a randomized phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line selpercatinib as compared with control treatment that consisted of platinum-based chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab at the investigator's discretion. The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in both the intention-to-treat-pembrolizumab population (i.e., patients whose physicians had planned to treat them with pembrolizumab in the event that they were assigned to the control group) and the overall intention-to-treat population. Crossover from the control group to the selpercatinib group was allowed if disease progression as assessed by blinded independent central review occurred during receipt of control treatment., Results: In total, 212 patients underwent randomization in the intention-to-treat-pembrolizumab population. At the time of the preplanned interim efficacy analysis, median progression-free survival was 24.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.9 to not estimable) with selpercatinib and 11.2 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 16.8) with control treatment (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.70; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 84% (95% CI, 76 to 90) with selpercatinib and 65% (95% CI, 54 to 75) with control treatment. The cause-specific hazard ratio for the time to progression affecting the central nervous system was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68). Efficacy results in the overall intention-to-treat population (261 patients) were similar to those in the intention-to-treat-pembrolizumab population. The adverse events that occurred with selpercatinib and control treatment were consistent with those previously reported., Conclusions: Treatment with selpercatinib led to significantly longer progression-free survival than platinum-based chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab among patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Eli Lilly and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04194944.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: Although NRG1 fusions are oncogenic drivers across multiple tumor types including lung cancers, these are difficult to study because of their rarity. The global eNRGy1 registry was thus established to characterize NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers in the largest and most diverse series to date., Methods: From June 2018 to February 2020, a consortium of 22 centers from nine countries in Europe, Asia, and the United States contributed data from patients with pathologically confirmed NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers. Profiling included DNA-based and/or RNA-based next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Anonymized clinical, pathologic, molecular, and response (RECIST v1.1) data were centrally curated and analyzed., Results: Although the typified never smoking (57%), mucinous adenocarcinoma (57%), and nonmetastatic (71%) phenotype predominated in 110 patients with NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancer, further diversity, including in smoking history (43%) and histology (43% nonmucinous and 6% nonadenocarcinoma), was elucidated. RNA-based testing identified most fusions (74%). Molecularly, six (of 18) novel 5' partners, 20 unique epidermal growth factor domain-inclusive chimeric events, and heterogeneous 5'/3' breakpoints were found. Platinum-doublet and taxane-based (post-platinum-doublet) chemotherapy achieved low objective response rates (ORRs 13% and 14%, respectively) and modest progression-free survival medians (PFS 5.8 and 4.0 months, respectively). Consistent with a low programmed death ligand-1 expressing (28%) and low tumor mutational burden (median: 0.9 mutations/megabase) immunophenotype, the activity of chemoimmunotherapy and single-agent immunotherapy was poor (ORR 0%/PFS 3.3 months and ORR 20%/PFS 3.6 months, respectively). Afatinib achieved an ORR of 25%, not contingent on fusion type, and a 2.8-month median PFS., Conclusion: NRG1 fusion-positive lung cancers were molecularly, pathologically, and clinically more heterogeneous than previously recognized. The activity of cytotoxic, immune, and targeted therapies was disappointing. Further research examining NRG1 -rearranged tumor biology is needed to develop new therapeutic strategies., Competing Interests: Alexander DrilonHonoraria: Medscape, OncLive, PeerVoice, Physicans' Education Resource, Targeted Oncology, MORE Health, Research to Practice, Foundation Medicine, PeerviewConsulting or Advisory Role: Ignyta, Loxo, TP Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Genentech/Roche, Helsinn Therapeutics, BeiGene, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis, Bayer, Tyra Biosciences, Verastem, Takeda/Millennium, BerGenBio, MORE Health, Lilly, Verastem, AbbVie, 14ner Oncology/Elevation Oncology, Remedica, Archer, Monopteros Therapeutics, Novartis, EMD Serono/Merck, Melendi, Repare TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Foundation MedicinePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Wolters Kluwer (royalties for Pocket Oncology)Other Relationship: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Puma Biotechnology Michael DuruisseauxConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Oncology, Amgen, AbbVieTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ji-Youn HanHonoraria: Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, TakedaConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Takeda, PfizerResearch Funding: Roche, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Takeda Soo-Ryum YangConsulting or Advisory Role: Invitae Yonina R. Murciano-GoroffTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca Morihito OkadaSpeakers' Bureau: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, Covidien, Lilly, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceutical, CSL BehringResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Nippon Kayaku, Chugai Pharma, Covidien, Johnson & Johnson, Daiichi Sankyo, Yakult Honsha, Lilly Japan, Nihon Medi-Physics, Pfizer, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Shionogi, Ono Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Miguel Angel MolinaEmployment: Pangaea OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, In3Bio Marie WislezConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, AmgenSpeakers' Bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Roche, MSD Oncology, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD Oncology Alexa SchrockEmployment: Foundation MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Foundation Medicine, Roche Siraj AliEmployment: EQRX (I), Foundation Medicine, EQRXLeadership: Incysus Inc, Elevation Oncology, Pillar BiosciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Exelixis, Merus NV, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Azitra (I), Princepx Tx (I)Patents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property:Patents via Seres Health on microbiome in non neoplastic disease (I), Foundation Medicine Valérie GounantConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chugai Pharma EuropeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, Roche, Pfizer Alison M. SchramResearch Funding: Merus, Kura Oncology, Surface Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Northern Biologics, Pfizer, Black Diamond Therapeutics, BeiGene, Relay Therapeutics Isabelle MonnetTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer Jin-Yuan ShihHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Chugai Pharma, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Takeda, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Ono Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & DohmeResearch Funding: RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Chugai Pharma, Roche Joshua SabariConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Navire, Pfizer, Regeneron, Medscape, Takeda Maurice PérolConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda, Chugai Pharma, Gritstone OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Roche, Takeda, Boehringer IngelheimTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda, Chugai Pharma Viola W. ZhuStock and Other Ownership Interests: TP TherapeuticsHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Blueprint Medicines, XcoveryConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech, XcoverySpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, Blueprint MedicinesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics Misako NagasakaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Novartis, EMD SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: TempusTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Anheart Therapeutics Robert DoebeleEmployment: Rain TherapeuticsLeadership: Rain TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership: Rain TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: GreenPeptide, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, Takeda, Rain Therapeutics, Anchiano, Blueprint Medicines, Foundation Medicine, Guardant HealthPatents, Royalties, and Other Intellectual Property: Abbott Molecular for Patent PCT/US2013/057495, Rain Therapeutics, Genentech (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst), Black Diamond (Inst), Pearl River (Inst), Voronoi (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Rain Therapeutics, Roche/Genentech D. Ross CamidgeHonoraria: Roche, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bio-Thera, Ribon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Inivata, AbbVie, Apollomics, Elevation Oncology, EMD Serono, Helsinn Therapeutics, Lilly, Nuvalent Inc, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, Kestrel Labs, Amgen Astellas BioPharma, Anchiano, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, OnKure, Mersana, Pfizer, QiLu Pharmaceutical, SanofiResearch Funding: Takeda Maria ArcilaHonoraria: Invivoscribe, BiocartisConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Invivoscribe, Raindance Technologies Sai-Hong Ignatius OuStock and Other Ownership Interests: Turning Point Therapeutics, Elevation OncologyHonoraria: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, Genentech/Roche, ARIAD/Takeda, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Jassen/JNJSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Genentech/RocheResearch Funding: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, AstraZeneca, ARIAD, Revolution Medicines, Mirati Therapeutics, Jassen/JNJ Denis Moro-SibilotConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly/ImClone, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, MSD Oncology, ARIAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, AbbvieResearch Funding: Abbvie (Inst), Boehr (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst)Expert Testimony: MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Lilly/ImClone, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb Lucia Anna MuscarellaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim Stephen V. LiuConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Regeneron, G1 Therapeutics, Guardant Health, Janssen Oncology, MSD Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Inivata, PharmaMar, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, BeiGene, AmgenResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Merck, Lycera, AstraZeneca, Molecular Partners, Blueprint Medicines, Lilly, Rain Therapeutics, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, Turning Point Therapeutics, RAPT Therapeutics, Merus, Debiopharm Group, Elevation OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology Jacques CadranelHonoraria: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer IngelheimConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Lilly, NovartisResearch Funding: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is currently used in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, regardless of PD-L1 expression status. A study comparing chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone has never been performed in patients with PD-L1 ≥50%. The aim of this trial is to perform such a comparison as first-line treatment in patients not eligible for locally advanced treatment who have expression of PD-L1 on ≥50% of tumor cells. The expected results are a reduction in the risk of early progression. A higher objective tumor response is also expected with the combination of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab compared with pembrolizumab alone. The study will allow a direct comparison of the proportion of patients who derive long-term benefit from the treatment. Clinical trial number: EudraCT (2020-002626-86); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04547504).

Selpercatinib, a novel, highly selective and potent, inhibitor of RET , demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity with manageable toxicity in heavily pretreated and treatment-naive RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in a Phase I/II clinical trial. LIBRETTO-431 (NCT04194944) is a randomized, global, multicenter, open-label, Phase III trial, evaluating selpercatinib versus carboplatin or cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with locally advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point is progression-free survival by independent review. Key secondary end points include overall survival, response rate, duration of response and progression-free survival. Clinical trial registration: NCT04194944 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.)

Purpose: In REVEL, patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and patients with increased tumor aggressiveness (rapid disease progression (RDP), platinum-refractory disease (PRD), and high symptom burden (HSB)) benefited from second-line treatment with ramucirumab plus docetaxel over placebo plus docetaxel. This post hoc analysis describes healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with the treatment., Methods: aNSCLC patients who had progressed during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive docetaxel and either ramucirumab or placebo until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. HCRU included hospitalizations, transfusions, and concomitant medications. Categorical variables (counts and percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test. Continuous variables (mean, standard deviation (SD), median, minimum, and maximum) were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test., Results: Patient characteristics were largely similar between treatment arms. Within the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 1253), the mean treatment duration was 19.7 and 16.9 weeks in the ramucirumab and control arms, respectively; 51.0% versus 54.9% of patients received subsequent anticancer therapy, respectively. Hospitalization rates were 41.9% versus 42.6% (p = 0.863), mean length of hospital stay was 14.5 days versus 11.3 days (p = 0.066), transfusion rates were 9.9% versus 12.3% (p = 0.206), and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors was 41.8% versus 36.6% (p = 0.063), respectively. No significant difference was observed in HCRU between treatment arms in both ITT population and in aggressive disease subgroups including RDP (n = 209), PRD (n = 360), and HSB (n = 497)., Conclusion: In REVEL, the addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel did not increase HCRU among patients with aggressive aNSCLC disease. These results may help inform economic evaluation of treatment for patients with aNSCLC.

Introduction: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease. Front-line therapy may affect responses to subsequent treatment regimens, thus influencing second-line therapy decision making. In the randomised phase 3 REVEL study, second-line ramucirumab plus docetaxel (ram+doc) versus docetaxel (doc) improved survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC. We explore efficacy, safety and quality-of-life (QoL) in REVEL based on front-line therapy., Methods: Patients were grouped by specific front-line therapy received. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, safety and QoL were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards modelling were used; frequencies reported in percentages., Results: Baseline characteristics of 1253 patients were generally well balanced between treatment arms within each front-line therapy subgroup. For patients with non-squamous disease (n=912), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane (n=227; 25%) or pemetrexed (n=449; 49%), with (n=172; 19%) or without bevacizumab. For patients with squamous disease (n=328), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus gemcitabine (n=176; 54%) or a taxane (n=69; 21%). A highly selected subgroup (n=127; 14%) received pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy. Ram+doc improved median OS and PFS versus doc across front-line therapy subgroups, as reflected by HRs ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 and 0.66 to 0.92, respectively, similar to results in the overall intention-to-treat cohort (HRs: 0.86 and 0.76, respectively). High-grade treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia and hypertension) were generally higher in ram+doc-treated patients relative to doc-treated patients regardless of front-line therapy. No clear differences in safety or QoL were seen across front-line therapy subgroups; outcomes were consistent with those reported in the overall intention-to-treat cohort., Conclusions: Results of this exploratory analysis suggest that second-line ram+doc may be effective regardless of prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane, pemetrexed, gemcitabine or bevacizumab. Overall, ram+doc is clinically beneficial across a wide range of patients with metastatic NSCLC who have progressed after various front-line therapies., Trial Registration Number: NCT01168973., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The following authors declared conflicts of interests. GCC, AHZ, ABO, PL, KW, and VJS are full-time employees and stockowners of Eli Lilly and Company. EA is a former employee and stockowner of Eli Lilly and Company. EBG has received honoraria from Dracen and EMD Serono, and his institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Genentech, Dynavax, Iovance, Mirati, and Neon. GVS has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Regeneron, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche and has served on the speaker’s bureaus of Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. MR has received honoraria for lectures from and functions in an advisory/consulting role for Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. MT has received Advisory Board honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; speaker’s honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Takeda; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Roche; and travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. HK has received reimbursement for meeting expenses and/or has functioned in an advisory/consultancy role for Eli Lilly and Company, Genesis Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received reimbursement for meeting expenses from Enorasis. J-HK serves in an advisory/consultancy role for and his institution has received grant funding for clinical trials from Eli Lilly and Company, including during the conduct of this study, and from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. OTB has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (for research funding and advisory/consultancy role), GlaxoSmithKline (for research funding), Merck (for advisory/consultancy role), Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (for research funding). MP has received honoraria for speaking, advisory and consultancy roles for Eli Lilly and Company., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Objectives: Alectinib demonstrated superior efficacy and a safety profile that compared favorably with crizotinib in treatment-naïve ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III ALEX study. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from ALEX to assess disease burden, treatment-related symptom tolerability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with alectinib versus crizotinib., Materials and Methods: Patients were randomized to receive alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until disease progression, death, or withdrawal. Pre-specified PRO endpoints were: mean change from baseline in symptoms, HRQoL, and functioning; and time to deterioration (TTD) in cough, dyspnea, chest pain, arm/shoulder pain, fatigue, and a composite of three symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain). PRO data were collected using EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 questionnaires. Raw scores were standardized to a 0-100-point range, with a ≥10-point score change defined as clinically meaningful. TTD was defined as the time from randomization until confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (i.e., a ≥10-point score change from baseline)., Results: Baseline completion rates and characteristics were balanced in the PRO-evaluable population (alectinib n = 100, 66%; crizotinib n = 97, 64%). On average, alectinib-treated patients reported clinically meaningful improvements in lung cancer symptoms for longer than crizotinib-treated patients. Between-treatment differences in lung cancer symptoms tended to favor alectinib from 11.1 months (45 weeks) onwards, around the time of median PFS with crizotinib (11.1 months). TTD in lung cancer symptoms was similar between treatment arms, despite longer duration of symptom improvement with alectinib; composite symptom endpoint (hazard ratio 1.10 [95% confidence interval: 0.72-1.68]). Duration of clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL was longer with alectinib versus crizotinib (Week 88 vs. Week 68, respectively). Better patient-reported tolerability was observed with alectinib versus crizotinib on common treatment-related symptoms., Conclusion: PRO data support the superior efficacy and tolerability of alectinib relative to crizotinib demonstrated in the ALEX study., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The REVEL study demonstrated improved efficacy with ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for previously treated advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without further detriment to patient quality of life, symptoms, or functioning. This post hoc analysis explored the association between baseline Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) Average Symptom Burden Index (ASBI) and efficacy., Materials and Methods: Baseline ASBI scores were the average of the 6 LCSS symptom components. Low and high symptom burden (LSB ≤ median, HSB > median) were analyzed across and by treatment arms for effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model., Results: Baseline LCSS compliance was approximately 78% in both REVEL treatment arms. Patients with LSB versus HSB had fewer poor prognostic factors. The HSB patient population significantly overlapped with previously identified aggressive disease subgroups (rapidly progressing disease or refractory to first-line treatment). Patients with LSB versus HSB had significantly improved OS (P < 0.0001), PFS (P < 0.0001), and ORR (P = 0.0003) regardless of treatment, with superior ORR and PFS but not OS in the ramucirumab plus docetaxel arm. Patients with HSB treated with ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel had improved OS (median, 7.39 vs. 5.95 months; HR 0.749 [95% CI 0.610-0.920]; P = 0.0308), PFS (median, 4.01 vs. 2.63 months; HR 0.749 [0.619-0.907]; P = 0.0202), and ORR (18% vs. 11%; P = 0.0458). Of patients with rapidly progressing disease, 57% (92/162) also had HSB., Conclusions: Baseline ASBI may be an independent prognostic factor in this large second-line cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC. The preservation of improved PFS and OS in the HSB cohort suggests that the addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel provides benefit in patients with greater symptom burden, consistent with previous data on REVEL patients with aggressive disease., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives The efficacy of osimertinib in pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR T790 M resistance mutation was demonstrated in clinical trials. However, data on efficacy of osimertinib in real world remain rare. Materials and methods This retrospective multicentric study analyzed T790M-positive advanced NSCLC patients enrolled in French early access program for osimertinib. Patients were pretreated with first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor and for a majority with chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from osimertinib initiation. Results 205 patients (mean age, 69.5 years; female, 68.8%; adenocarcinoma, 97.5%, never-smokers, 71.5%) were analyzed. Osimertinib was used in second and third line in 18.0% and 82.0% of patients, respectively. Median PFS was 12.4 (95% CI, 10.1-15.1) months. In patients with and without cerebral metastasis, PFS was 9.7 (7.7-13.5) and 15.1 (12.0-17.1) months (p = 0.21), respectively. PFS in second and third line or more was 12.6 (6.7-17.5) and 12.4 (9.7-15.3) months, respectively. Median PFS in patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion and exon 21 mutation was 13.5 (10.1-16.0) and 9.7 (7.4-13.2) months, respectively (p = 0.049). Median OS since osimertinib initiation was 20.5 (16.9-24.3) months: 23.1 (18.6-27.8) and 18.0 (12.2-22.2) months in patients without and with cerebral metastasis (p = 0.11); 17.5 (11.6-27.8) and 21.7 (17.3-24.3) months as second or third line of treatment or more (p = 0.46), respectively. Median OS in patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion and exon 21 mutation was 23.1 (18.6-25.7) and 15.3 (11.6-21.7) months, respectively (p = 0.03). Osimertinib dosage was modified in 8.0% of patients and definitively discontinued for adverse events in 5.9%. Fifty patients benefited from rebiopsy (persistence of T790 M mutation, 44.7%; C797S mutation, 21.1%; cMET amplification, 8.0%). Conclusion In pretreated patients with T790M-mutated advanced NSCLC, the efficacy of osimertinib appears similar in real-world setting to that of clinical trials., (Copyright © 2018 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.

Purpose: Ramucirumab plus docetaxel improved survival in REVEL, a randomized phase 3 trial for patients with Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer after standard platinum-based chemotherapy. This exploratory analysis evaluated the exposure-response relationship of ramucirumab from REVEL., Methods: Patients received ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 ) every 3 weeks. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected. A population pharmacokinetic analysis predicted ramucirumab minimum concentration after first-dose administration (C min,1 ) and average concentration at steady state (C ave,ss ). Predicted C min,1 and C ave,ss were used to evaluate the relationship between ramucirumab exposure and efficacy and safety, respectively. Exposure-efficacy was assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses; exposure-safety was assessed by ordered categorical analyses., Results: Analyses included 376 patients treated with ramucirumab plus docetaxel and 366 patients treated with placebo plus docetaxel (364 for safety population). After adjusting for corresponding prognostic factors, the association between overall survival (OS) and C min,1 was statistically significant (p = 0.0110), although progression-free survival (PFS) showed a marginal association (p = 0.0515). At high ramucirumab exposures (C min,1 ), greater improvements (smaller hazard ratios) were seen for OS and PFS when stratified by C min,1 exposure quartiles. A statistically significant correlation was observed between ramucirumab C ave,ss and grade ≥ 3 febrile neutropenia and hypertension., Conclusions: An association was observed between ramucirumab exposure and efficacy. Higher ramucirumab exposure was associated with improved clinical outcomes and increased toxicity in this analysis. Two exposure-response prospective randomized trials are being conducted to address causation (NCT02443883 and NCT02514551), with encouraging preliminary results (Ajani et al. in Ann Oncol 28:abstr 698P, 2017).

Introduction: Ramucirumab, a recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist designed to block the ligand-binding site of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2), was evaluated as second-line treatment in combination with docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the REVEL trial (NCT01168973). Ramucirumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). We report age subgroup analysis results primarily on the basis of a 65-year cutoff., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ramucirumab with docetaxel or placebo with docetaxel (n = 1253). Of these, 798 were younger than 65 years (ramucirumab, n = 391; control, n = 407) and 455 were 65 years or older (ramucirumab, n = 237; control, n = 218). Treatment comprised 21-day cycles of 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel with 10 mg/kg ramucirumab or placebo. Prespecified age subgroup analyses were performed, including OS, PFS, and objective response rate. Quintiles age analysis was conducted to establish a relationship between efficacy and age. The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) measured quality of life outcomes. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs)., Results: Patients younger than 65 years showed favorable OS outcomes with ramucirumab treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87; P < .001) and PFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .001). In patients 65 years or older, benefits of ramucirumab were not as evident; after model adjustment for prognostic factors, OS and PFS HRs were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.77-1.21; P = .04) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.05; P = .03), respectively. Age analysis according to quintiles showed HRs favoring ramucirumab for all age groupings. LCSS scores and AEs did not considerably differ between age groups., Conclusion: In this subgroup analysis, true treatment effect differences on the basis of age have not been established, and treatment should not be deterred solely because of age., (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.)

Objectives: Ramucirumab, a recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, increased overall survival (OS) combined with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the REVEL trial. Pre-specified exploratory analysis examined efficacy and safety by histology., Materials and Methods: 1253 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive ramucirumab (10mg/kg; n=628) plus docetaxel (75mg/m 2 ) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=625) after disease progression on or after platinum-based therapy, with or without bevacizumab or maintenance therapy. OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. Primary quality-of-life analysis was time to deterioration (TtD) of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) scores using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression., Results: Median OS for adenocarcinoma was 11.2 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n = 377) and 9.8 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=348); HR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.69-0.99). In squamous disease, median OS was 9.5 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n=157) versus 8.2 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=171); HR 0.88 (95% CI: 0.69-1.13). Median OS for other nonsquamous was 10.8 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n=74) and 9.3 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=78); HR=0.86 (95% CI: 0.59-1.26). Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment arms across histologic subgroups. TtD for LCSS scores was similar between treatment arms in the nonsquamous and squamous subgroups., Conclusion: REVEL demonstrated similar favorable efficacy and manageable safety for ramucirumab-docetaxel across histologic subgroups of NSCLC., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended to assess the vulnerability of elderly patients, but its integration in cancer treatment decision making has never been prospectively evaluated. Here, in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we compared a standard strategy of chemotherapy allocation on the basis of performance status (PS) and age with an experimental strategy on the basis of CGA., Patients and Methods: In a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, elderly patients ≥ 70 years old with a PS of 0 to 2 and stage IV NSCLC were randomly assigned between chemotherapy allocation on the basis of PS and age (standard arm: carboplatin-based doublet if PS ≤ 1 and age ≤ 75 years; docetaxel if PS = 2 or age > 75 years) and treatment allocation on the basis of CGA (CGA arm: carboplatin-based doublet for fit patients, docetaxel for vulnerable patients, and best supportive care for frail patients). The primary end point was treatment failure free survival (TFFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tolerability, and quality of life., Results: Four hundred ninety-four patients were randomly assigned (standard arm, n = 251; CGA arm, n = 243). Median age was 77 years. In the standard and CGA arms, 35.1% and 45.7% of patients received a carboplatin-based doublet, 64.9% and 31.3% received docetaxel, and 0% and 23.0% received best supportive care, respectively. In the standard and CGA arms, median TFFS times were 3.2 and 3.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.1), and median OS times were 6.4 and 6.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.1). Patients in the CGA arm, compared with standard arm patients, experienced significantly less all grade toxicity (85.6% v 93.4%, respectively P = .015) and fewer treatment failures as a result of toxicity (4.8% v 11.8%, respectively; P = .007)., Conclusion: In elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, treatment allocation on the basis of CGA failed to improve the TFFS or OS but slightly reduced treatment toxicity., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Objectives: REVEL demonstrated that ramucirumab+docetaxel (RAM+DTX) improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with progression after platinum-based chemotherapy. This analysis examined quality of life (QoL) as assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and clinician-reported functional status., Materials and Methods: The LCSS includes 6 symptom and 3 global items measured on a 0-100-mm scale; higher scores represent greater symptom burden. LCSS and ECOG PS data were collected at baseline, every 3-week cycle, the summary visit, and at the 30-day follow-up. LCSS total score and Average Symptom Burden Index (ASBI) were calculated. The primary analysis compared time to deterioration (TtD) between treatment arms for all individual items and summary scores, defined as increase from baseline by ≥ 15 mm using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. TtD to ECOG PS ≥ 2 was analyzed., Results: There were 1253 patients randomized to receive RAM+DTX or placebo+docetaxel (PL+DTX). Across all assessments, LCSS compliance was approximately 75% and balanced across arms. The mean (SD) baseline LCSS total score was 27.3mm (17.08 mm) on RAM+DTX and 29.6mm (17.59 mm) on PL+DTX. At 30-day follow-up, mean (SD) LCSS total score was 32.0 (19.03) on RAM+DTX and 32.5 (19.87) on PL+DTX. The TtD for all LCSS scores was similar between treatment arms. Stratified HRs (95% CI) for LCSS total score and ASBI were HR=0.99 (0.81, 1.22), p=0.932 and HR=0.93 (0.75, 1.15), p=0.514 with approximately 70% of patients censored. TtD to PS ≥ 2 was similar between treatment arms (HR=1.03 [95% CI: 0.85, 1.26], p=0.743) with approximately two-thirds of the patients censored., Conclusion: In addition to improvement of clinical efficacy outcomes demonstrated in REVEL, these results suggest that adding ramucirumab to docetaxel did not impair patient QoL, symptoms, or functioning., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ramucirumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus ramucirumab or placebo as second-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based therapy., Methods: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (REVEL), we enrolled patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC who had progressed during or after a first-line platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a centralised, interactive voice-response system (stratified by sex, region, performance status, and previous maintenance therapy [yes vs no]) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and either ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo on day 1 of a 21 day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all patients allocated to treatment. We assessed adverse events according to treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01168973., Findings: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 24, 2013, we screened 1825 patients, of whom 1253 patients were randomly allocated to treatment. Median overall survival was 10·5 months (IQR 5·1-21·2) for 628 patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel and 9·1 months (4·2-18·0) for 625 patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·75-0·98; p=0·023). Median progression-free survival was 4·5 months (IQR 2·3-8·3) for the ramucirumab group compared with 3·0 months (1·4-6·9) for the control group (0·76, 0·68-0·86; p<0·0001). We noted treatment-emergent adverse events in 613 (98%) of 627 patients in the ramucirumab safety population and 594 (95%) of 618 patients in the control safety population. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (306 patients [49%] in the ramucirumab group vs 246 [40%] in the control group), febrile neutropenia (100 [16%] vs 62 [10%]), fatigue (88 [14%] vs 65 [10%]), leucopenia (86 [14%] vs 77 [12%]), and hypertension (35 [6%] vs 13 [2%]). The numbers of deaths from adverse events (31 [5%] vs 35 [6%]) and grade 3 or worse pulmonary haemorrhage (eight [1%] vs eight [1%]) did not differ between groups. Toxicities were manageable with appropriate dose reductions and supportive care., Interpretation: Ramucirumab plus docetaxel improves survival as second-line treatment of patients with stage IV NSCLC., Funding: Eli Lilly., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT-GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval., Methods: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm., Results: Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms., Conclusions: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.

Purpose: We conducted a phase III study to compare the survival impact of concurrent versus sequential treatment with radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment arms. In the sequential arm, patients received induction CT with cisplatin (120 mg/m2) on days 1, 29, and 57, and vinorelbine (30 mg/m2/wk) from day 1 to day 78, followed by thoracic RT at a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions (2 Gy per fraction and 5 fractions per week). In the concurrent arm, the same RT was started on day 1 with two concurrent cycles of cisplatin 20 mg/m2/d and etoposide 50 mg/m2/d (days 1 to 5 and days 29 to 33); patients then received consolidation therapy with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on days 78 and 106 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2/wk from days 78 to 127., Results: Two hundred five patients were randomly assigned. Pretreatment characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. There were six toxic deaths in the sequential arm and 10 in the concurrent arm. Median survival was 14.5 months in the sequential arm and 16.3 months in the concurrent arm (log-rank test P = .24). Two-, 3-, and 4-year survival rates were better in the concurrent arm (39%, 25%, and 21%, respectively) than in the sequential arm (26%, 19%, and 14%, respectively). Esophageal toxicity was significantly more frequent in the concurrent arm than in the sequential arm (32% v 3%)., Conclusion: Although not statistically significant, clinically important differences in the median, 2-, 3-, and 4-year survival rates were observed, with a trend in favor of concurrent chemoradiation therapy, suggesting that is the optimal strategy for patients with locally advanced NSCLC.

Context: The most satisfactory treatment for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is combination chemotherapy-radiotherapy (CT-RT). The optimal treatment modalities remain to be determined., Objective: We conducted a multicenter phase II trial of the docetaxel-radiotherapy combination after induction chemotherapy with cisplatin-vinorelbine. The main endpoint was the objective response rate., Patients and Methods: Patient with inoperable stage locally advanced NSCLC received induction chemotherapy consisting of two cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on D1 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on D1, D8, D15 and D22. Patients with responses or stable disease then received concurrent RT-CT consisting of 25 mg/m2/week docetaxel and single-fraction radiotherapy (66 grays (Gy) in 33 fractions) over 6.5 weeks., Results: Fifty-six patients were enrolled from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2001. Sixteen patients left the trial after induction chemotherapy, eight for progression, five for toxicity, and two for intercurrent events. One patient underwent surgery after induction chemotherapy. In total, 40 of the 56 patients received RT-CT. Twelve (30%) of these 40 patients experienced grade III or IV pulmonary or esophageal toxicity. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the objective response rate was 46.4% (95% CI 33.0-60.2). The median time to progression was 6.2 months [1.1-26.0]. The median survival time was 13 months [0.3-44.9 months]. Nine patients progressed during RT-CT, six with brain metastases., Conclusion: Weekly docetaxel with concurrent radiotherapy, following chemotherapy is acceptable. The tumor response rate is moderate. Further trials are required to determine the risk-benefit relationship of this treatment schedule, and the possible benefit of adding other cytotoxic drugs.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method allowing an evaluation of the direction and quantitative importance of a treatment effect observed in randomized trials which have tested the treatment but have not provided a definitive conclusion. In the present review, we discuss the methodology and the contribution of meta-analyses to the treatment of advanced-stage or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. In this area of cancerology, meta-analyses have provided determining information demonstrating the impact of chemotherapy on patient survival. They have also helped define a two-drug regimen based on cisplatin as the gold standard treatment for patients with a satisfactory general status. Recently, the meta-analysis method was used to measure the influence of gemcitabin in combination with platinium salts and demonstrated a small but significant benefit in survival, confirming that gemcitabin remains the gold standard treatment in combination with cisplatin.

Background: The potential absence of cross-resistance between cisplatin and docetaxel in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggests that alternating regimens of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and docetaxel might increase the activity of chemotherapy in stage IV NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Randomized, multicenter, non-comparative phase II study in patients with stage IV NSCLC (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2). Patients randomized to alternating treatment group (A) received docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on days (D) 1 and 43 alternating with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on D22 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 on D22, D29 and D36. Those randomized to the control group (B) received cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on D1, D22 and D43 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 once a week from D1 to D57. Treatment was continued for a further 6 weeks in the event of objective response or stabilization., Results: Seventy patients were enrolled (group A: 38, group B: 32). More premature treatment discontinuations due to toxicity were observed in group A (median number of cycles: 3) than in group B (median number of cycles: 5). The intention-to-treat objective response rate was 10.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8% to 20.8%] in group A compared with 25% (95% CI 10% to 40%) in group B, the median time to treatment failure being 10.2 weeks and 17.3 weeks, respectively. The median survival and 1-year survival were 29.1 weeks and 39% in group A compared with 41.6 weeks and 42% in group B. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 5.9 and 4.9% of the cycles in group A and group B, respectively. Non-hematological toxicity was moderate in the two groups., Conclusions: The addition of docetaxel alternating with cisplatin-vinorelbine did not enhance the activity of this combination. The development of sequential regimens might be a more promising way of exploiting the absence of cross-resistance between these two drugs.

Purpose: To determine if the timing of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with respect to chemotherapy with cisplatin and vinorelbine would influence survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and concurrent brain metastasis., Patients and Methods: One hundred seventy-six patients with brain metastasis from NSCLC were included in the study between July 1995 and October 1997. All patients received chemotherapy with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, 22. Cycles were repeated every four weeks. Evaluation of response was performed after two, four or six cycles. After two cycles, chemotherapy was administered to the responders to a maximum of six cycles. Patients were randomised to receive WBRT 30 Gy/10 fx/12 days and delayed corticosteroids. (arm A) for the intracranial nonresponders, or early on day 1 to 12 during the first cycle of chemotherapy (arm B)., Results: One hundred seventy-one patients were eligible: eighty-six in arm A and eighty-five in arm B; none had received prior chemotherapy; seventy-six and seventy-three, respectively, were assessable for response. There was a 21% overall objective response rate (OR) (with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses) after two cycles of chemotherapy alone (arm A) and a 20% OR (with 17 partial responses) to chemotherapy and early WBRT (arm B). The intracranial OR was 27% and 33%, respectively (P = 0.12). The six months survival rate (46% and 40%) and the median survival duration (24 and 21 weeks, respectively) were not significantly different between the two arms (P = 0.83, log-rank test). The major toxicity was severe or life-threatening neutropenia (grade 4), which occurred in 35% of arm A patients and 36% of arm B patients. There were thirteen treatment-related deaths (six in arm A and seven in arm B). There was no difference between the arms for haematological and neuro-toxicities., Conclusions: These results confirm the efficacy of chemotherapy in brain metastases of NSCLC and suggest that the timing (early or delayed) of WBRT did not influence survival of NSCLC with brain metastasis treated with concurrent chemotherapy.

The study was designed to evaluate the value of vinorelbine in a cisplatin-mitomycin-vinca alkaloid regimen for treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A group of 227 patients with inoperable NSCLC in stage III (58%) or stage IV (42%) were included in this randomized multicenter trial comparing a reference regimen (VDS group, n = 113) cisplatin (120 mg/m2 on day 1, day 29 and day 71), mitomycin (8 mg/m2 on day 1, day 29 and day 71) and vindesine (3 mg/m2/week for 5 weeks and then every 2 weeks up to the 15th week) to a cisplatin-mitomycin-vinorelbine combination (VNB group, n = 114), with cisplatin and mitomycin at the same doses, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/week for 16 weeks. The objective response rate (evaluated at 17th week) was 17% in the VDS group and 25% in the VNB group (P = 0.15). Median survival was 33.4 weeks and 34.5 weeks in the VDS and VNB arms, respectively. Overall survival duration was not significantly different between the two arms (logrank test, P = 0.20) despite a trend to an increased survival in the VNB group. This essentially benefited the patients with stage III disease with a clear-cut lengthening of median (45.9 vs. 33.4 weeks) and 1 year survival (44.6% vs. 26.2%, P < 0.05) in favor of the VNB group. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in overall survival (logrank, P = 0.13). Survival duration of the patients with stage IV disease was comparable in the two arms (logrank test, P = 0.90). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was found in 61% and 87% of the VDS and VNB groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Grade 2-4 peripheral neuropathy was observed in 23% of the patients in the VDS group and in 6% of the patients in the VNB group (P < 0.01). Replacement of vindesine by vinorelbine in a cisplatin-mitomycin-vinca alkaloid chemotherapeutic regimen did not lead to a significant improvement in objective response rate or in duration of survival. There was a reduction in neurotoxicity at the expense of an increased hematologic toxicity. However, for patients with stage III disease there was an increase in 1 year survival with the vinorelbine combination.

Unlabelled: Between February 1992 and May 1993, 22 patients older than 75 years, with non small cell lung cancer, were treated with carboplatin and oral etoposide. There were 18 men and four women with a median age of 79 years. Fourteen patients had an epidermoid carcinoma: four had an adenocarcinoma and four had an undifferentiated carcinoma. Carboplatin was administered intravenously on day 1 at a dose of 300 mg/m2; oral etoposide was administered at a dose of 600 mg/m2 (two capsules daily) for 9, 10, 11, or 12 days according to body surface. Courses were repeated every 28 days for a total of three courses., Toxicity: 15 patients (68%) had received previous chemotherapy. Myelosuppression was the main problem with one grade IV and five grade III hematologic toxicities. We observed one mild neurologic toxicity., Results: 19 patients were evaluable for response. We observed one complete response (5%), five disease stabilizations (26%) and 13 disease progressions. Median survival was 5 months. These results led to discontinue this study.