Search

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a third-generation inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has antitumor activity in previously treated patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The efficacy of lorlatinib, as compared with that of crizotinib, as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global, randomized, phase 3 trial comparing lorlatinib with crizotinib in 296 patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included independently assessed objective response and intracranial response. An interim analysis of efficacy was planned after approximately 133 of 177 (75%) expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: The percentage of patients who were alive without disease progression at 12 months was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 84) in the lorlatinib group and 39% (95% CI, 30 to 48) in the crizotinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.41; PCONCLUSIONS: In an interim analysis of results among patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, those who received lorlatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival and a higher frequency of intracranial response than those who received crizotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was higher with lorlatinib than with crizotinib because of the frequent occurrence of altered lipid levels. (Funded by Pfizer; CROWN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03052608.).

The identification of EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) changed deeply the treatment of this disease harbouring these kind of DNA alterations, that occur respectively in about 10–15% and 45–50% of Caucasian and Asian patients (1,2).

Background Management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients requires a multidisciplinary approach. Among the working team, the role of IBD nurse is expected to be particularly relevant when managing patients receiving biological therapies. We performed a survey to assess the presence of IBD nurse in centers where patients were receiving biologics. Methods For this Italian nationwide survey a specific questionnaire was prepared. IBD nurse was defined as a nurse directly involved in all phases of biological therapy, from pre-therapy screening, administration and monitoring during therapy, to follow up performed by a dedicated helpline, completed a specific training on biological therapy therapy, and observed international guidelines. Results A total of 53 Italian IBD centers participated in the survey, and 91 valid questionnaires were collected. Overall, 34 (37.4%) nurses could be classified as IBD specialists. IBD nurses had a significantly higher educational level than other nurses, they were more frequently operating in Central or Southern than in Northern Italy, they were working in an Academic center rather than in a General hospital, and in IBD centers with >25 patients on biological therapy. On the contrary, mean age, gender distribution, years of nursing, and years working in the IBD unit did not significantly differ between IBD and other nurses. Conclusions Our nationwide survey showed that the presence of an IBD nurse is still lacking in the majority of Italian IBD centers where patients receive biological therapies, suggesting a prompt implementation. Keywords Inflammatory bowel disease, biological therapy, management, nursing Ann Gastroenterol 2016; 29 (4): 492-496

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

Purpose: Lonidamine (LND) can enhance the activity of anthracyclines in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was designed to determine whether the association of LND with high-dose epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC) could improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with early breast cancer (BC) compared with EC alone. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was added to maintain the EC dose-intensity. Patients and Methods: From October 1991 to April 1994, 506 patients with stage I/II BC were randomly assigned to four groups: (A) epirubicin 120 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 administered intravenously on day 1 every 21 days for four cycles (124 patients); (B) EC plus LND 450 mg/d administered orally (125 patients); (C) EC plus G-CSF administered subcutaneously (129 patients); (D) EC plus LND plus G-CSF (128 patients). Results: Median follow-up was 55 months. Five-year DFS rate was similar for LND (B+D groups; 69.6%) versus non-LND arms (A+C groups; 70.3%) and G-CSF (C+D groups; 67.2%) versus non–G-CSF arms (A+B groups; 72.9%). Five-year overall survival (OS) was comparable in LND (79.1%) versus non-LND arms (81.3%) and in G-CSF (80.6%) versus non–G-CSF arms (79.6%). DFS and OS distributions in LND and G-CSF arms did not change according to tumor size, node, receptor, and menopausal status. G-CSF dramatically reduced hematologic toxicity without having a significant impact on dose-intensity (98.1% v 95.5% for C+D and A+B groups, respectively). Conclusion: EC is active and well tolerated in patients with early breast cancer. The addition of LND or G-CSF does not improve DFS or OS.

Aims To evaluate the efficacy and treatment compliance in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) of two chemotherapeutic agents with mild toxicity, 153 previously untreated patients aged over 70 years were randomized to receive lonidamine (450 mg daily p.o. until progression), vindesine (3 mg/m2/daily i.v. weekly for 4 weeks and then every 2 weeks until progression), the combination of the two drugs at the same dose and schedule, or supportive therapy only in a four-arm factorial randomized trial. Methods 126 patients were included in the final analysis. Their median age was 75 years. Forty percent had stage IV disease and 60% stage III. Most patients were males (85%) and the majority had squamous histology (68%). Results Among 104 patients evaluable for response there were only 3 PRs (1/30 in the lonidamine arm and 2/33 in the lonidamine + vindesine arm). Overall, 8.7% and 9.5% of the patients, respectively, progressed or died early, before response evaluation; another 9.4% refused treatment continuation because of poor compliance with the study protocol. Eighty-five patients were fully evaluable for toxicity, which was generally mild. Leukopenia grade 1-3 was found in less than 30% of patients treated with vindesine or vindesine + lonidamine. The most common complaints associated with lonidamine treatment were myalgia (70% of patients), fatigue (55% and 83% of patients treated with lonidamine or lonidamine + vindesine, respectively) and testicular pain in nearly 40% of cases. The overall median survival was 170 days, with no significant impact on survival of either lonidamine or vindesine. Conclusions The low response rate and survival together with the poor treatment compliance, even in the presence of mild toxicity, do not support the usefulness of these “gentle” chemotherapies in elderly NSCLC patients. The standard management of advanced NSCLC in elderly patients remains to be defined. Specifically designed studies to address this issue are warranted.

Purpose To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non—small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. Patients and Methods Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm. Results Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival. Conclusions Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non—small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

In the present multicentre randomized phase II trial, the activity and toxicity of three platinum-based combination regimens for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were evaluated. The three regimens were: MVP (mitomycin-C 6 mg m(-2) on day 1, vindesine 3 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 15, and cisplatin 80 mg m(-2) on day 1 every 28 days), PIN (cisplatin 80 mg m(-2) day 1, ifosfamide 3 g m(-2) day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg m(-2) day 1 and 8 every 21 days) and CaN (carboplatin 350 mg m(-2) day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg m(-2) days 1 and 8 every 28 days). A total of 140 chemotherapy-naive patients entered the study; 49 patients were treated with MVP, 48 with PIN and 43 with CaN. Sixty-seven per cent of the patients had stage IV disease. Response rates, calculated on an 'intention to treat' basis, were as follows: MVP, 14.3% (95% CI 5.94-27.2%); PIN, 16.7% (95% CI 7.4-30.2%); and CaN, 14% (95% CI 5.3-27.9%). The overall median survivals were 256, 269 and 243 days for patients treated with MVP, PIN and CaN respectively. Myelosuppression was the most frequent toxicity: grade 3-4 leucopenia was observed in 14.3%, 25% and 18.6% of patients treated with MVP, PIN and CaN respectively. This multicentre phase II randomized trial shows that MVP, PIN and CaN can be administered on an outpatient basis with acceptable toxicities. Unfortunately, the three regimens showed an activity significantly lower than that reported in previous single-institution phase II trials.

Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC.We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225.Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes.Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

The main difficulty with multiple lung tumors is distinguishing synchronous and metachronous lesions from second independent primary tumors, particularly when dealing with the same histologic type. Challenging diagnostic hurdles may explain, at least in part, the extremely variable (0%–79%) 5-year survival rate. We present a case report of a patient with synchronous primary adenocarcinoma treated with surgery that exhibited different EGFR gene status, with an exon 19 mutation in the adenocarcinoma of the left upper lobe that was absent in the right upper lobe. Further, specific EGFR and C-MYC amplification events were associated only with the EGFR-mutated lesion. According to an independent evolution theory, these events were classified as early stage, and the patient is still alive and free of disease 70 months after surgery. Molecular evaluation was an important tool to support the diagnosis of synchronous primary adenocarcinoma, which had not been possible with the application of Martini-Melamed criteria.

The present study describes supportive care (SC) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), evaluating whether it is affected by concomitant chemotherapy, patient's performance status (PS) and age. Data of patients enrolled in three randomised trials of first-line chemotherapy, conducted between 1996 and 2001, were pooled. The analysis was limited to the first three cycles of treatment. Supportive care data were available for 1185 out of 1312 (90%) enrolled patients. Gastrointestinal drugs (45.7%), corticosteroids (33.4%) and analgesics (23.8%) were the most frequently observed categories. The mean number of drugs per patient was 2.43; 538 patients (45.4%) assumed three or more supportive drugs. Vinorelbine does not produce substantial variations in the SC pattern, while cisplatin-based treatment requires an overall higher number of supportive drugs, with higher use of antiemetics (41 vs 27%) and antianaemics (10 vs 4%). Patients with worse PS are more exposed to corticosteroids (42 vs 30%). Elderly patients require drugs against concomitant diseases significantly more than adults (20 vs 7%) and are less frequently exposed to antiemetics (12 vs 27%). In conclusion, polypharmacotherapy is a relevant issue in patients with advanced NSCLC. Chemotherapy does not remarkably affect the pattern of SC, except for some drugs against side effects. Elderly patients assume more drugs for concomitant diseases and receive less antiemetics than adults.

Background Nivolumab has shown a survival benefit compared with docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with previously treated advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a randomized phase III trial. The experiences of patients and physicians in routine clinical practice are often different from those in a controlled clinical trial setting. We present data from the entire Italian cohort of patients with squamous NSCLC enrolled in a worldwide nivolumab NSCLC expanded access program. Patients and Methods Patients with pretreated advanced squamous NSCLC received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 24 months. Safety was monitored throughout; efficacy data collected included objective tumor response, date of progression, and survival information. Results The Italian cohort comprised 371 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. In the overall population, the objective response rate (ORR) was 18%, the disease control rate (DCR) was 47%, and median overall survival (OS) was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval 6.2–9.6). In subgroup analyses, ORR, DCR, and median OS were, respectively, 17%, 48%, and 9.1 months in patients previously treated with two or more lines of therapy (n = 209) and 8%, 40%, and 10.0 months in patients treated beyond disease progression (n = 65). In the overall population, the rate of any-grade and grade 3–4 adverse events was 29% and 6%, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 14 patients (5%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion To date, this report represents the most extensive clinical experience with nivolumab in advanced squamous NSCLC in current practice outside the controlled clinical trial setting. These data suggest that the efficacy and safety profiles of nivolumab in a broad, real-world setting are consistent with those obtained in clinical trials. Implications for Practice Nivolumab is approved in the U.S. and Europe for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. In this cohort of Italian patients with previously treated, advanced squamous NSCLC treated in a real-world setting as part of the nivolumab expanded access program, the efficacy and safety of nivolumab was consistent with that previously reported in nivolumab clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES A few studies have already demonstrated survival benefits for local treatment in solitary metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study is to retrospectively investigate the role of surgery in patients with oligometastatic (OM) NSCLC. METHODS Between January 1998 and December 2018, 57 patients with OM stage IV NSCLC (1 or 2) underwent a multidisciplinary approach including lung cancer surgery, local treatment of the distant metastasis (DM) and systemic medical treatments. RESULTS All patients had DM synchronous to lung cancer. Fifty-one (90%) patients had a single DM whereas 6 (11%) patients had 2 DMs. Forty-eight (84%) patients underwent induction chemotherapy. We performed 47 (82%) lobectomies, 4 (7%) segmentectomies and 6 (11%) pneumonectomies. Pathological lymph node involvement was evident in 28 (49%) patients. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 20 (35%) patients. Forty-six (81%) patients had local treatment of the DM before lung resection, and 11 (19%) patients had after lung resection; 6 (11%) patients had both treatments. The median overall survival (OS) was 30 months, with the 2-, 3- and 5-year OS of 57%, 50% and 30%, respectively. OS was significantly related to lymph node involvement (P = 0.04), size of the primary tumour (P CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary approach is the gold standard in OM patients. Patients with no lymph node involvement are the best candidates, with an acceptable OS. Thus, patients with OM-NSCLC should not be excluded from surgery as a matter of principle.

Objective Since data from large retrospective observational studies and cancer registries became available, suggesting a benefit for patients undergoing surgery, the role of surgery in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) needs to be reconsidered. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and results of patients with SCLC undergoing intent-to-treat surgery. Material and methods We retrospectively analyzed 324 patients (1998–2018) with a diagnosis of SCLC referred to our Institution. 65 patients underwent surgical resection with curative intent. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall survival (OS) for all patients. Results Among the patients, 39 (60.0 %) patients had surgery upfront, whereas 24 (36.9 %) had surgery after chemotherapy (CT) alone, and 2 (3.1 %) after CT plus radiotherapy (RT). Twenty-nine (44.6 %) patients were stage I or had a complete response to induction treatment, 21 (32.3 %) had stage II, and 15 (23.1 %) stage III. Forty-four (67.7 %) patients underwent adjuvant treatment: 21 (32.3 %) had CT, 31 (47.7 %) RT, and 7 (10.8 %) both. Prophylactic cranial irradiation was administered in 15 patients (23.1 %). The median OS after initial diagnosis at 1, 5, 10 years was 1, 5, 10 years was 81.4 %, 41.4 % and 25.4 % respectively. Among patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent, those with clinical stage I had a longer survival (5-year OS 62.9 %) p Conclusion patients with stage I SCLC could be considered the best candidates for surgery, in a multidisciplinary setting. Instead, considering their worse survival, those with stage II and III should be carefully selected for the surgical approach, and alternative therapy should be considered.

Background Results of several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the combination of an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus an anti-angiogenic drug in advanced EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer were reported. Methods We first report a systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs to estimate effectiveness and toxicity of this new therapeutic approach compared with first-generation EGFR-TKI monotherapy. Subsequently, we present a network meta-analysis comparing the combination of an EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug with 2 new treatment options: combination of an EGFR-TKI plus chemotherapy or new EGFR-TKIs of second or third generation as monotherapy. Results Five RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically significantly larger in patients treated with an EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug compared with EGFR-TKI monotherapy: the pooled PFS–hazard ratio (HR) was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.69). The pooled median-PFS was 17.8 months (95% CI = 16.5 to 19.3 months) for the combination vs 11.7 months (95% CI = 11.1 to 12.7 months) for EGFR-TKI as monotherapy. No statistically significant differences between the 2 treatment arms were observed in overall survival or objective response rate. The rate of grade equal or higher than 3 adverse events was statistically significantly higher in patients treated with EGFR-TKI plus an anti-angiogenic drug: the pooled-relative risk was 1.72 (95% CI = 1.43 to 2.06). Ten RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. All 3 experimental treatments were associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared with first-generation EGFR-TKIs. When compared to each other, none of the 3 experimental treatments were statistically significantly associated with larger PFS or lower rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events. Conclusion Patients with EGFR-mutated non small-cell lung cancer derived clinically meaningful larger PFS benefit from the addition of an anti-angiogenic drug to a first-generation EGFR-TKI at the cost of an increase of toxicities.

Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. During a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P

Objectives While the best approach to malignant pleural mesothelioma has yet to be demonstrated, surgery remains the mainstay of treatment. We analysed a group of candidates for trimodality treatment, aiming to identify prognostic factors guiding patient selection. Methods Between 2003 and 2015, 83 (31.6%) of the 283 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma were considered for trimodality treatment to perform induction chemotherapy, extrapleural pneumonectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy. All patients underwent cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was administered at a mean dose of 50.4 Gy. Results Thirty-six patients (43.4%) had 3 cycles of chemotherapy, whereas 21 (25.3%) had more than 3. Progression to chemotherapy was observed in 10.9% (9 of 83) of patients, partial response in 30.1% (25 of 83) and stable disease in 59% (49 of 83). Sixty-three patients underwent extrapleural pneumonectomy. Fifty-five patients (87.3%) had epithelial tumour. Forty-two patients (66.7%) were in pathological Stage 3. Major complications after extrapleural pneumonectomy were observed in 28 patients (44.4%), whereas 30-day postoperative mortality was 11.1% (7/63). Radiotherapy was not administered in 24 patients (38.1%) due to major complications after surgery or patient intolerance. Two patients (3.2%) died within 90 days after the end of radiotherapy. The trimodality treatment was completed in 37 (44.6%) patients. Median overall survival was 35.6 months, with 1- and 3-year overall survival of 82% and 48% for patients who completed the trimodality treatment compared with 32% and 14% for patients who did not undergo radiotherapy. Conclusions Only 45% of patients completed the planned trimodality treatment, and morbidity/mortality remained high. Nonetheless, the patients who completed treatment showed good loco-regional disease control and better overall survival.

Background/aim The management of elderly patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC includes several strategies. Patients and methods Patients (≥70 years) were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,200 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1-8) (arm A) or bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v.) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2 i.v.) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1-8) (arm B), to independently evaluate treatments. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate at 6 months; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety profiles. Results At 6 months, 5 (11.6%) patients in arm A and 5 patients (12.5%) in arm B were found to be progression-free. Median PFS was 4.8 months in arm A and 6.5 months in arm B, respectively. Conclusion In our experience, combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy had encouraging anti-tumor efficacy as first-line therapy in elderly patients with non-squamous NSCLC.

Background/Aim: The TArceva and docetaxeL In former-Smokers MAle patients with recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (TALISMAN) phase II, open-label randomized trial evaluates the combination of erlotinib with docetaxel in the second-line therapy of ex-smoker males with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/day (arm A; n=36) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of each 3-week cycle and erlotinib 150 mg/day on days 2-16 of each cycle (arm B; n=38). The primary end-point was progression-free rate (PFR) at 6 months. Results: The study was prematurely interrupted due to slow enrolment. Three (8.3%) patients in arm A and 3 (8.1%) in arm B remained progression-free at 6 months. Median progressionfree survival (PFS) was 2.3 months in arm A and 2.8 months in arm B. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.6 and 8.9 months, respectively. Overall, 77.8% of patients in arm A and 89.2% in arm B experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Conclusion: Results do not support further investigation of the combination of erlotinib and docetaxel in this setting Background/Aim: The TArceva and docetaxeL In former-Smokers MAle patients with recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (TALISMAN) phase II, open-label randomized trial evaluates the combination of erlotinib with docetaxel in the second-line therapy of ex-smoker males with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: Patients received erlotinib 150 mg/day (arm A; n=36) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 of each 3-week cycle and erlotinib 150 mg/day on days 2-16 of each cycle (arm B; n=38). The primary end-point was progression-free rate (PFR) at 6 months. Results: The study was prematurely interrupted due to slow enrolment. Three (8.3%) patients in arm A and 3 (8.1%) in arm B remained progression-free at 6 months. Median progressionfree survival (PFS) was 2.3 months in arm A and 2.8 months in arm B. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.6 and 8.9 months, respectively. Overall, 77.8% of patients in arm A and 89.2% in arm B experienced treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Conclusion: Results do not support further investigation of the combination of erlotinib and docetaxel in this setting.

BackgroundWe previously showed that therapy with anti–checkpoints T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti–CTLA-4) or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) agents was more effective for men as compared with women. However, because the sex-dimorphism of the immune system is complex, involving multiple elements of immune responses, it is possible that women could derive larger benefit than men from strategies other than therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone. Here we investigated whether women could derive larger benefit than men from the combination of chemotherapy and anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1.MethodsWe performed two meta-analyses. The first included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing anti-PD1 and anti–PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy to assess different efficacy between men and women. The second included all RCTs of first-line systemic treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer testing anti–PD-1/PD-L1 given either alone or combined with chemotherapy to assess the different efficacy of these two immunotherapeutic strategies according to patients’ sex. For each RCT included in the two meta-analyses, first, a trial-specific ratio of hazard ratios (HRs) was calculated from the ratio of the reported hazard ratios in men and in women; second, these trial-specific ratios of hazard ratios were combined across trials using a random-effects model to obtain a pooled hazard ratios ratio. A pooled HRs ratio estimate lower than 1 indicates a greater treatment effect in men, and higher than 1 a greater effect in women.ResultsEight RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios (OS-HRs) comparing anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.87) for men and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.67) for women. The pooled ratio of the overall survival hazard ratios reported in men vs women was 1.56 (95% CI = 1.21 to 2.01), indicating a statistically significant greater effect for women. Six RCTs were included in the second meta-analysis: three tested an anti-PD-1 alone, whereas three RCTs tested anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios were 0.78 (95% CI = 0.60 to 1.00) in men and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.79 to 1.19) in women for anti–PD-1 alone, compared with 0.76 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.91) in men and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.76) in women for anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled ratio of overall survival hazard ratios was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.65 to 1.06) for anti–PD-1 alone, indicating a greater effect in men, and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.16 to 2.49) for anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy, indicating a greater effect in women.ConclusionWomen with advanced lung cancer derived a statistically significantly larger benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 as compared with men.

Objectives Brain metastases are common among patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and result in a poor prognosis. Consequently, such patients are often excluded from clinical trials. In Italy an expanded access program (EAP) was used to evaluate nivolumab efficacy and safety in this subpopulation outside a clinical trial. Materials and methods In this EAP, nivolumab was available for patients with non-squamous NSCLC in progression after at least one systemic treatment for stage IIIB/IV disease. Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 2 weeks. Patients with brain metastases could be included if they were asymptomatic, neurologically stable and either off corticosteroids or on a stable or decreasing dose of ≤10 mg/day prednisone. Results 409 out of 1588 patients included had asymptomatic or controlled brain metastases. A median of 7 doses (range 1–45) were delivered. Median follow-up was 6.1 months (range 0.1–21.9). The disease control rate was 39%: 4 patients had a complete response, 64 a partial response and 96 showed stable disease. At baseline, 118 patients were on corticosteroids and 74 were undergoing concomitant radiotherapy. The median overall survival in this subpopulation was 8.6 months (95% CI: 6.4–10.8). 337 discontinued treatment for various reasons, 23 (7%) of whom due to adverse events, in line with that observed in the overall population and in previous studies. Conclusions Our results confirm that nivolumab is active in non-squamous NSCLC patients with brain metastases, despite their poor prognosis. Its safety profile is also concordant with results in the EAP overall population and in patients with other malignancies.

BACKGROUND: About 20% of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases harbor somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene. In these patients, the standard first-line treatments are the EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib. Most of these patients develop resistance and relapse within about 1 year of initiation of an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Consequently, it is important to develop new combination strategies to delay this resistance. Preclinical data have showed that EGFR and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) share a common downstream pathway, suggesting the important role of VEGF in the resistance to EGFR blockade. The combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF agent, showed very interesting clinical results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The bevacizumab plus erlotinib study (BEVERLY) is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial investigating first-line erlotinib plus bevacizumab versus erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations. The co-primary endpoints are investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and blinded, independent centrally reviewed PFS. The secondary endpoints include overall survival, quality of life, objective response rate, and safety. A total of 200 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, intravenously, on day 1 of every 21-day cycle) or erlotinib alone, until objective disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or the patient's or physician's motivated decision to stop the treatment. CONCLUSION: If the primary endpoint of PFS is met, the erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination will be confirmed as the best first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations. Background About 20% of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases harbor somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene. In these patients, the standard first-line treatments are the EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib. Most of these patients develop resistance and relapse within about 1 year of initiation of an EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Consequently, it is important to develop new combination strategies to delay this resistance. Preclinical data have showed that EGFR and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) share a common downstream pathway, suggesting the important role of VEGF in the resistance to EGFR blockade. The combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF agent, showed very interesting clinical results. Patients and Methods The bevacizumab plus erlotinib study (BEVERLY) is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial investigating first-line erlotinib plus bevacizumab versus erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations. The co-primary endpoints are investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and blinded, independent centrally reviewed PFS. The secondary endpoints include overall survival, quality of life, objective response rate, and safety. A total of 200 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, intravenously, on day 1 of every 21-day cycle) or erlotinib alone, until objective disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or the patient's or physician's motivated decision to stop the treatment. Conclusion If the primary endpoint of PFS is met, the erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination will be confirmed as the best first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutations.

Angiogenesis, one of the hallmarks of cancer, occurs when new blood vessels feed malignant cells, providing oxygen and nutrients, promoting tumor growth, and allowing tumor cells to escape into the circulation, thus leading to metastases. To date, a series of antiangiogenic drugs (either monoclonal antibodies or small molecules) have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer, and they are currently available for both first- and second-line therapy. The overall benefit of these drugs seems modest (although clearly significant), especially when administered as a single agent, and there is no clear consensus with regard to which patients should be candidates to receive these drugs across the different disease settings. From the biological perspective, angiogenesis represents a difficult and complex process to explore, given the interference with other key pathways and the dynamic evolution during the disease's history. Indeed, this process is complicated by the presence of multiple targets to hit, polymorphisms, hypoxia-dependent modifications, and epigenetics. These difficulties do not allow capture of which specific key pathways can be identified as biomarkers of efficacy so as to maximize to overall benefit of such drugs. An International Experts Panel Meeting was inspired by the absence of clear recommendations to address which patients should receive antiangiogenic drugs in the context of advanced non–small cell lung cancer so as to support decisions for clinical practice on a daily basis and determine priorities for future research. After a literature review and panelists consensus, a series of recommendations were defined to support decisions for the daily clinical practice and to indicate a potential road map for translational research.

Introduction Nivolumab is the first checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC. We report results from the nivolumab Italian expanded access program focusing on never-smokers and patients with EGFR-mutant nonsqamous NSCLC. Methods Nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) was administered upon physicians' request to patients who had relapsed after one or more prior systemic treatments for stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC. Efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. Results Of 1588 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, 305 (19.2%) were never-smokers. EGFR status was available for 1395 patients. Of the 102 patients (6.4%) with EGFR mutation–positive tumors, 51 (50%) were never-smokers. The objective response rate was significantly higher in patients with wild-type EGFR than patients with EGFR-mutant tumors (19.6% versus 8.8% [p = 0.007]), in former and current smokers than in never-smokers (21.5% versus 9.2% [p = 0.0001]), and in never-smokers with wild-type EGFR than in never-smokers with mutant EGFR (11.0% versus 1.9% [p = 0.04]). There was no significant difference in objective response rate between smokers with wild-type EGFR and smokers with mutant EGFR (22.0% versus 20.6%). There was no statistically significant difference in median progression-free survival or in median overall survival. The median overall survival times were 11 months in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors versus 8.3 months in patients with EGFR-mutant tumors, 11.6 months in smokers versus 10.0 months in never-smokers, 11.0 months in never-smokers with EGFR wild-type tumors versus 5.6 months in never-smokers with EGFR-mutant tumors, and 14.1 months in smokers with EGFR-mutant tumors versus 11.3 months in smokers with EGFR wild-type tumors. Conclusions The data on the Italian expanded access program in populations with nonsquamous NSCLC suggest that subgroups of patients could benefit differently from nivolumab according to their EGFR mutational status and smoking habits. These results warrant further investigation.

Background The role of extended pulmonary resection for lung metastases is still unclear, and little information is available in the literature. This study was performed to analyze the outcomes and prognostic factors of patients who underwent extended resections for pulmonary metastases. Methods From 1998 to 2013, 1027 patients underwent lung metastasectomy procedures. Twenty-nine patients had extended pulmonary resections: three resections of the chest wall, one azygos, one diaphragm, four vascular resections/reconstructions, six sleeve resections, and 14 pneumonectomies. Results Extended resection was performed for metastatic disease mainly from epithelial (62.1%) and sarcomatous (20.7%) tumors. Complete resection was obtained in all patients. Thirty-day operative morbidity and mortality rates were 38% (11 of 29) and 0%, respectively. Only one patient had a major complication due to a bronchopleural fistula. Mean hospital stay was 6.3 days. After a median follow-up of 27 months, 16 patients (55%) had died. At univariate analysis, survival was determined by primary tumor histology ( p = 0.03); the number of metastases, nodal status, disease-free interval or extension of surgery (pneumonectomy vs. lobar resection) were not related to survival probably due to the low number of patients. Overall survival after a complete extended metastasectomy was 66% at 2 years, 42% at 5 years, and 36% at 10 years. Conclusions Extended resections performed during pulmonary metastasectomies are associated with low mortality and morbidity rates and an acceptable long-term survival when performed in selected patients susceptible to complete resection.

BACKGROUNDNivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open-label phase 3 trial, we compared first-line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive NSCLC.METHODSWe randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor-expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more.RESULTSAmong the 423 patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months with nivolumab versus 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.45; P = 0.25), and the median overall survival was 14.4 months versus 13.2 months (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30). A total of 128 of 212 patients (60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 71% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 92% of those who received chemotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 18% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 51% of those who received chemotherapy.CONCLUSIONSNivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. Overall survival was similar between groups. Nivolumab had a favorable safety profile, as compared with chemotherapy, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 026 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02041533.)

Summary Background Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. Findings Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8–15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6–11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62–0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6–18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8–12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58–0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59–0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54–0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60–0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. Interpretation To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

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

The ICARUS trial is a phase II, open label, multicenter, single arm study conducted to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a rechallenge treatment with the first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) gefitinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients carrying activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The ICARUS trial enrolled 61 patients who were rechallenged with gefitinib at progression after second-line chemotherapy. Serum-derived circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) collected before the rechallenge from a cohort of 29 patients, was retrospectively analyzed for the EGFR exon 19 deletions and for the p.L858R and p.T790M single nucleotide variants (SNV). The analysis of cfDNA detected the same EGFR activating mutation reported in the tumor tissue in 20/29 patients, with a sensitivity of 69%. Moreover, a p.T790M variant was found in 14/29 patients (48.3%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months for p.T790M positive patients (CI 95% 1.4&ndash, 3.1 months) versus 3.5 months for the p.T790M negative patients (CI 95% 1.6&ndash, 5.3 months), resulting in a statistically significant difference (Long rank test p = 0.0180). These findings confirmed the role of the p.T790M mutation in the resistance to first-generation TKIs. More importantly, our data suggest that TKI rechallenge should be guided by biomarker testing.

Purpose In the phase III PARAMOUNT trial, pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy reduced the risk of disease progression versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79; P < .001). Here we report final overall survival (OS) and updated safety data. Patients and Methods In all, 939 patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received four cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin induction therapy; then, 539 patients with no disease progression and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (2:1) to maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of 21-day cycles; n = 359) or placebo (n = 180). Log-rank test compared OS between arms as measured from random assignment (α = .0498). Results The mean number of maintenance cycles was 7.9 (range, one to 44) for pemetrexed and 5.0 (range, one to 38) for placebo. After 397 deaths (pemetrexed, 71%; placebo, 78%) and a median follow-up of 24.3 months for alive patients (95% CI, 23.2 to 25.1 months), pemetrexed therapy resulted in a statistically significant 22% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0195; median OS: pemetrexed, 13.9 months; placebo, 11.0 months). Survival on pemetrexed was consistently improved for all patient subgroups, including induction response: complete/partial responders (n = 234) OS HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.11 and stable disease (n = 285) OS HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.01). Postdiscontinuation therapy use was similar: pemetrexed, 64%; placebo, 72%. No new safety findings emerged. Drug-related grade 3 to 4 anemia, fatigue, and neutropenia were significantly higher in pemetrexed-treated patients. Conclusion Pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy is well-tolerated and offers superior OS compared with placebo, further demonstrating that it is an efficacious treatment strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC and good performance status who did not progress during pemetrexed-cisplatin induction therapy.

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

3067Background: Nivolumab is the first checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of squamous non small cell lung cancer (Sq-NSCLC) to show a survival benefit in a randomised phase III trial. ...

Background: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥ 1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥ 12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m2/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n ≥ 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n ≥ 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P ≥ 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P ≥ 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. Conclusion: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. Trial registration number: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Patients with stage IIIA-ipsilateral mediastinal lymph node involvement (N2) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represent a heterogeneous group with different clinical presentation. The aim of this study was to analyze a series of patients with "potentially resectable" stage IIIA-pathologically proven N2 (pN2) NSCLC undergoing induction chemotherapy followed by surgery to evaluate their long-term outcomes and to identify prognostic factors. Out of 287 patients who underwent induction chemotherapy for NSCLC with ipsilateral mediastinal lymph node involvement pathologically proven, we retrospectively evaluated 141 (49%) patients with no clinical evidence of progression after induction chemotherapy and candidates for surgery. Most of them (73%) underwent at least 3 cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to plot survival and the log-rank test to assess the survival difference between groups. Multivariable analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. A total of 15 (10.6%) patients underwent explorative thoracotomy; 126 patients underwent surgical anatomical resection after a median 27 days (range: 21-30) from the last cycle of chemotherapy. A total of 113 (89.7%) patients had a radical resection. A total of 22 (17.5%) patients had a complete pathologic lymph node downstaging (pN0), and 8 (6.3%) patients had a complete pathological response (pT0N0). The median overall survival was 24 months, with a 5-year overall survival of 30%. At multivariable analysis, downstaging and number of cycles of chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors (P = 0.006); downstaging benefit was mostly because of complete pathological response (hazards ratio = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.76). In conclusion, more than 3 cycles of chemotherapy and pathological downstaging could significantly improve 5-year survival in selected patients with "potentially resectable" pathologically proven N2 disease.

Several randomized trials have recently investigated the role of maintenance treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with responding or stable disease after completion of first-line chemotherapy. Maintenance strategy has relevant implications in terms of potential toxicity, logistics and costs, and all of these aspects should be taken into account, together with the magnitude of benefit for the patient. In order to assess the strengths and limitations of available evidence, to help clinical practice, and to suggest priorities for future clinical research, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) organized an International Experts Panel Meeting on maintenance treatment of advanced NSCLC, which took place in Sperlonga (Italy) in May 2011. Based on the available evidence, panelists agreed that maintenance therapy represents a treatment option in advanced NSCLC. Maintenance should be discussed with patients not progressed after 4-6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy, who are fit (performance status 0-1) and without persistent chemotherapy-induced toxicity. Patients need to be well informed about potential advantages and disadvantages of accepting additional therapy without a "treatment-free period" Two different strategies, switch or continuation maintenance, are supported by available evidence. At the moment, there is no direct comparison between switch maintenance and continuation maintenance. For future trials, the panel recommends the use of overall survival as the primary endpoint, with pre-defined second-line treatment. Translational research is essential to identify predictive factors, and should be performed, whenever feasible, in order to achieve treatment optimization with proper patient selection. © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in the world today, in terms of both incidence and mortality. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for about 85% of all lung cancers, and the majority of people diagnosed with NSCLC have locally advanced or metastatic disease. Treatment algorithms have rapidly changed in the last 10 years because of the introduction of new chemotherapeutic and targeted agents in clinical practice. SUN is a 1-year longitudinal observational multicenter study that has consecutively enrolled patients affected by stage IIIB or IV NSCLC with the aim to describe the pattern of care and evolving approaches in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. 987 consecutive NSCLC patients were enrolled between January 2007 and March 2008 at the 74 participating centers throughout Italy and a 12-month follow-up was performed. Cyto-histological diagnosis was performed mainly by broncoscopy with only 24% by CT-scan guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. 91.4% of the patients received a first-line medical treatment and 8.6% supportive care only. Median age of patients receiving first-line treatment was 66 years. First-line chemotherapy consisted of a single agent in 20% of patients and combination chemotherapy in 80%. The most frequently used chemotherapy regimens were cisplatin plus gemcitabine and carboplatin plus gemcitabine. Median survival of patients receiving first-line chemotherapy was 9.1 months. 32% percent of patients received a second-line treatment that consisted of chemotherapy in 71% of cases and erlotinib in 29%. Overall third-line treatment was given to 7.3% of patients. These results showed a pattern of care for advanced NSCLC that reflects the current clinical practice in Italy at the study time with a high adherence to the International guidelines by the Italian Oncologists. Keywords Advanced NSCLC; Observational study; Chemotherapy; Platin-based chemotherapy; Pemetrexed; Docetaxel; Targeted therapy; Erlotinib

Background: Sorafenib is a small-molecule multitargeted kinase inhibitor that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor b. The aim of this multicenter, randomized phase II study was to evaluate clinical activity and safety of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine in unselected untreated elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: The trial was designed to select the most promising sorafenib-containing combination in previously untreated elderly (‡70 years) stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients, with performance status of zero to two. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the following combinations: gemcitabine, 1200 mg/m 2 days 1 and 8, every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 1); or erlotinib, 150 mg/day, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 2). A selection design was applied with 1-year survival rate as the primary end point of the study, requiring 58 patients. Results: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to the study (31 patients in arm 1 and 29 patients in arm 2). After a median follow-up of 15 months, 10 patients [32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 49%] in arm 1 and 13 patients (45%, 95% CI 27% to 63%) in arm 2 were alive at 1 year. Median overall survival was 6.6 and 12.6 months in arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Observed toxic effects were consistent with the expected drug profiles. Conclusions: The combination of erlotinib and sorafenib was feasible in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate than the other arm. According to the selection design, this combination warrants further investigation in phase III trials.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, randomized trials have recently demonstrated the efficacy of several new drugs (pemetrexed, bevacizumab, cetuximab, erlotinib, gefitinib) in this setting. Hence, the choice of optimal treatment is no longer limited to the different platinum-based doublets. In order to guide clinical management of patients with advanced NSCLC, assess the strengths and limitations of available evidence, and to suggest priorities for clinical research, the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology organized an International Expert Panel Meeting on the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, which took place in Sperlonga (Italy) in May 2009. Experts recommended that every effort should be made to obtain adequate tumor tissue before initiating treatment. Tumor histology/cytology subtyping is now important for the correct choice of treatment. In particular, considering efficacy data obtained with pemetrexed and safety concerns with bevacizumab, a division between squamous and non-squamous tumors is necessary. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis, at present, is not recommended in all patients, but should be performed in subgroups of patients characterized by higher prevalence of sensitizing mutations (Asians, never smokers, women, adenocarcinoma). When a mutation is present, first-line treatment with single-agent EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor may be considered. Finally, the potential benefit of maintenance treatment for patients without progression at the end of first-line should be carefully discussed with each patient. Although the number of treatment options for patients with advanced NSCLC has increased recently, their results remain modest and further research is mandatory. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

We conducted a large, multicenter, retrospective survey aimed to explore the impact of tumor bone involvement in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Data on clinical-pathology, skeletal outcomes and bone-directed therapies for 661 deceased patients with evidence of bone metastasis were collected and statistically analyzed. Bone metastases were evident at diagnosis in 57.5% of patients. In the remaining cases median time to bone metastases appearance was 9 months. Biphosphonates were administered in 59.6% of patients. Skeletal-related events were experienced by 57.7% of patients; the most common was the need for radiotherapy. Median time to first skeletal-related event was 6 months. Median survival after bone metastases diagnosis was 9.5 months and after the first skeletal-related event was 7 months. We created a score based on four factors used to predict the overall survival from the diagnosis of bone metastases: age >65 years, non-adenocarcinoma histology, ECOG Performance Status >2, concomitant presence of visceral metastases at the bone metastases diagnosis. The presence of more than two of these factors is associated with a worse prognosis.This study demonstrates that patients affected by Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with bone metastases represent a heterogeneous population in terms of risk of skeletal events and survival.

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

In the last two decades the results of medical treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have constantly improved even if they are still far from being considered satisfactory. Today systemic cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) is able to increase survival and improve cancer-related symptoms in patients with advanced ‘wet’ stage III and metastatic stage IV NSCLC, but it not clear if the benefits of CT also apply to patients with poor performance status (PS) [1, 2]. PS is the most powerful independent prognostic factor in advanced NSCLC since it is a reliable measure of functional independence, ability to perform daily activities and work, and a strong predictor of survival and adverse events as well [3]. The vast majority of prospective phase III trials had been conducted stratifying patients according to stage (III versus IV) and PS (PS 0–1 versus 2). In a retrospective analysis by the Veteran Administration Lung Group including more than 5000 patients, PS recorded according to the Karnofsky Index was the strongest prognostic factor followed by extent of disease and weigh loss [3]. The same conclusion has been reached by more recent large trials using new regimens. The survival analysis of 1960 patients treated with cisplatin-based CT in five ECOG trials showed a median survival of 3.3 months for PS2 patients as compared to 9.4 months and 6.4 months recorded for PS0 and PS1 patients, respectively [4]. A similar analysis of 2531 patients included in fourteen SWOG trials also showed that a poor PS was the strongest independent predictor of shorter median survival (PS 0–1: 6.4 months; PS >_2. 3.3 months) and lower 1-year survival rate (20% versus 9%; P _2 was 3.8 months. Data from 1052 patients treated with cisplatin-based CT in seven EORTC trials showed that, after disease extent, PS was the most important determinant of outcome [6]. In all studies a better outcome was also associated to less disease extent, presence of less than 1 metastatic lesion, absence of liver, skin or bone metastases, basal haemoglobin levels >11 gr%, normal LDH and alkaline phosphatase levels, absence of symptoms due to metastatic disease, and a preserved appetite. Recently an analysis of 1436 patients treated with third-generation doublet regimens (ECOG E5592 and E1594 trials) allowed the identification of six independent poor prognostic factors including PS2, presence of skin or liver metastases, loss of appetite, presence of less than four metastatic sites, and no prior surgical treatment. A normogram using these six pretreatment prognostic factors was elaborated and validated to predict 1-and 2-year survival in CT-naive patients. This prognostic model could be potentially useful in clinical decision making and research planning [7]. Despite the negative influence of poor PS on survival parameters, the relationship between PS score and control of cancer-related symptoms deserves some comments. A significant proportion of patients with PS2 treated with CT may experience an improvement in tumor-related symptoms even if a better PS is associated with better control. A study on nearly 300 patients showed that 48% of PS2 patients and even 30% PS3 ones may experience an improvement of cancerrelated symptoms. However a better PS was a strong prognostic factor for higher symptomatic response [8]. Only one study specifically analysed quality of life (QoL) in the different PS sub-groups [9]. Patients with PS2 reported the worst scores at baseline assessment. The drop-out rate in PS2 patients was greater than in the other PS levels (PS2 35% versus PS1 23% versus PS0 18%). Nevertheless, PS2 pts had significant benefit from CT and, with the greater potential for palliation determined by worse baseline condition, showed an improvement in QoL even higher than that of patients with PS 0–1. Overall, median survival of PS2 patients is substantially shorter than that of PS 0–1 patients, being usually

IntroductionIn the PARAMOUNT (“A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Immediately Following Induction Treatment with Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Non-Squamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer”) trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) benefited from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin by extending survival, delaying disease progression, and maintaining quality of life (QoL). However, low-grade 1 or 2 toxicities during long-term maintenance treatment may become burdensome and impact QoL.Materials and MethodsPatients in this double-blind study (n = 539), who had completed 4 induction cycles (pemetrexed with cisplatin) without progressive disease (PD) and had an ECOG performance status of 0/1, were randomized 2:1 to pemetrexed maintenance (500 mg/m2, day 1) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC until PD. Adverse events (by maximum Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] grade) and QoL (EuroQol 5-dimensional [EQ-5D] scale) were assessed.ResultsA median of 4 maintenance cycles was administered (range, pemetrexed 1-44; mean ± SD 7.9 ± 8.3; placebo 1-38; mean ± SD 5.0 ± 5.2), with 28% of pemetrexed and 12% of placebo patients receiving ≥ 10 maintenance cycles. The pemetrexed dose intensity was 94%. More patients receiving pemetrexed (12%) than placebo discontinued because of possible drug-related CTCAEs (4%; P = .005). Overall, pemetrexed was associated with significantly more (P < .05) low-grade events (grade 1/2 nausea, grade 2 anemia, edema, and neutropenia) than placebo. Overall, the incidence of low-grade fatigue, anemia, and neutropenia decreased with long-term pemetrexed exposure; however, renal events increased across treatment arms. EQ-5D analyses demonstrated no treatment-by-time interaction or overall treatment differences between the 2 arms.ConclusionPARAMOUNT demonstrated a low incidence of low-grade toxicities with long-term pemetrexed exposure without compromising QoL in patients with NS-NSCLC.

More than 30% of lung cancers arise in patients aged 70 years or more; however, because elderly patients are not considered to tolerate chemotherapy, they are generally excluded from clinical trials and are not considered eligible for aggressive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in clinical practice. The aims of the present study were to test tolerability and activity of weekly vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients aged 70 years or more, and to define whether minimum conditions existed for a randomised comparison with best supportive care. The study was designed as a multicentre two-stage phase II trial according to Simon's optimal design: 8 or more responses out of 43 treated patients were expected at the end of the trial. Patients aged 70 years or more were eligible if they had a cytological or histological diagnosis of NSCLC at stage IIIb–IV and a performance status less than or equal to two according to the ECOG scale. Vinorelbine was given intravenously (i.v.) at a dose of 30 mg/m 2 every week for 12 doses. As planned, 43 patients entered the study; median age was 73 years (range 70–80); 11 patients were older than 75 years. Median dose-intensity (mg/m 2 /week) of vinorelbine was 21.2 (range 7.5–30) and was not affected by age of patients. Toxicity was generally mild, mainly haematological and never life-threatening. ECOG performance status improved in 26% of patients; cough and pain improved in more than 40% of patients symptomatic at entry, while dyspnoea improved in 28%; approximately half the patients had a stabilisation of their symptoms. 10 patients (23–95% exact confidence interval (CI): 12–39%) obtained a partial response. Median time to progression was 11 weeks (95% CI 8–30) and median survival 36 weeks (95% CI 28–53). One-year estimated progression-free and overall survival rates are 16% and 36%, respectively. In conclusion, vinorelbine was well tolerated and active in the treatment of elderly NSCLC patients. A phase III trial (ELVIS—Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study) comparing best supportive care versus best supportive care plus vinorelbine is now ongoing.

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the evidence of its efficacy among ECOG performance status (PS)2 patients is weak because these patients are usually excluded from clinical trials; concern exists about tolerability and feasibility of standard chemotherapy in these patients. No prospective randomized trial has tested the addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. CAPPA-2 was a multicenter, randomized phase 3 study for first-line treatment of PS2 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients, aged 18-70, were eligible if they had stage IV or IIIB with malignant pleural effusion or metastatic supraclavicular nodes (TNM VI edition) and adequate organ function. Patients in standard arm received gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8. Patients in experimental arm received cisplatin 60 mg/m2 day I plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8. All treatments were repeated every 3 weeks, up to 4 cycles, unless disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). To have 80% power of detecting hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, corresponding to an increase in median OS from 4.8 to 6.8 months, 285 deaths were required. The study was stopped in June 2012 after the enrolment of 57 patients, due to the slow accrual and the report of positive results from a similar study. Median OS was 3.0 months with single-agent gemcitabine and 5.9 months with cisplatin plus gemcitabine (HR 0.52,95% CI 0.28-0.98, p = 0.039). Combination chemotherapy produced longer PFS (median 1.7 vs. 3.3 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89, p = 0.017) and higher response rate (4% vs. 18%, p = 0.19), without substantial increase in toxicity. The addition of cisplatin to single-agent gemcitabine improves survival as first-line treatment of PS2 patients with advanced NSCLC. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. Methods: In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m 2) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m 2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m 2 every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373. Findings: Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p

International audience; Objective of this indirect economic comparison was to estimate and compare management costs of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) reported for first-line erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The economic analysis was performed for Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Types and incidences of reported grade 3/4 AEs observed with erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy were retrieved from two recently published placebo-controlled trials. Country-specific estimates on standard treatment algorithms and incremental medical resource utilization associated with each of the reported grade 3/4 AEs have been obtained from clinical oncologists practicing in the four countries and co-authoring this article. The resource use items were subsequently assigned country-specific tariffs to estimate total per-patients costs associated with the AE profiles of the two compared maintenance regimens. For the economic analysis a customized economic spreadsheet model was employed. Our comparison shows lower total average per-patient AE management costs for erlotinib than for pemetrexed maintenance therapy in all four studied countries. Total estimated cost savings per patient in favour of erlotinib amount to € 121, € 237, € 106, and € 119 for Germany, France, Italy and Spain, respectively. These AE cost savings for erlotinib when compared to pemetrexed represent a decrease by 80%, 71%, 94%, and 82%, respectively. The study also discovered considerable differences in AE management costs across countries which are primarily due to differences in clinician's estimates of hospitalization referral rates. Erlotinib maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC causes lower AE management costs than pemetrexed maintenance therapy indicating a potentially superior tolerability profile.

Introduction The Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) and the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) realized the first conjunct educational meeting, open to European oncologists involved in the treatment of thoracic malignancies, entitled “Advanced non-small cell lung cancer: new perspectives in first-line setting”. Methods The educational meeting included 8 interactive talks, held by European key opinion leaders, and 5 related clinical cases in which the attendees, divided in working tables based on their country origin, were involved for interactive discussion. The aim of this course was to elucidate the differences or similarities among the European countries in the first-line treatment of patients affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results Twenty-two attendees of the following countries participated: Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Swiss, and UK. As expected, some discrepancies between the groups were identified concerning the approach to the diagnostic phase, the choice of first-line regimen, the duration of treatment and the use of maintenance therapy. These discrepancies were mainly due to familiarity with specific therapies and lack of access to certain therapies due to local regulatory issues. Conclusion The European Medicine Agency grants marketing of drugs in all Europe, regulatory agency of each country can register the drug, but can also deny public reimbursement thus restricting the options of the oncologist. The European Oncology Associations should join to their effort to achieve a uniform access to the cancer therapy for all patients in Europe.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in potentially resectable stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has become standard of treatment in the last years. Two randomised pioneer phase III trials conducted with second generation platinum combinations had demonstrated an advantage in survival of induction chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone. Subsequently, a wide number of phase II studies with third generation platinum-based doublets or triplets have increased the evidence of the activity as well as the good tolerability of this approach. Nowadays, the main topics of ongoing clinical research are to assess the role of induction chemotherapy in early stage disease, and the role of induction radiotherapy, as well as definite chemo-radiotherapy in stage IIIA NSCLC. This report review these issues and focuses on current treatment options for resectable stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC.