Search

Objectives: To better understand genetic determinants of response to ceritinib, an exploratory analysis was conducted using tumor biopsies from anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with ceritinib at doses of ≥ 300 mg in the ASCEND-1 study., Methods: ASCEND-1 was an open-label, multicentre, phase 1, dose-escalation and expansion study of ceritinib (fasted) in ALK inhibitor (ALKi)-naïve or ALKi-pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK + NSCLC. Biopsies were assayed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using a Foundation Medicine panel targeting 295 genes. Somatic alterations were correlated with clinical outcome (cut-off 14-Apr-2014). A total of 285 ALK + NSCLC patients were treated with ceritinib at doses ≥ 300 mg., Results: NGS data were generated for 85 pts (ALKi-pretreated [n = 54]; ALKi-naïve [n = 31]), 57 were collected from patients before exposure to any ALKi. NGS did not detect ALK rearrangement in 14 of 85 patients; several of these ALK NGS negative cases harbored alternative drivers, e.g. EGFR mutation. Of the 71 biopsies with NGS confirmed ALK rearrangement, the most frequently detected rearrangements were EML4-ALK variant 1 (V1) and EML4-ALK V3 (36.6% [26/71] and 32.4% [23/71] respectively). Eight (six crizotinib-pretreated and two pretreated with crizotinib followed by alectinib) of the 21 ALKi-pretreated patients carried a point mutation of the ALK TKD, and had the biopsy collected between 1 and 14 days before ceritinib; with the exception of one patient with a G1202R point mutation, all patients derived clinical benefit from ceritinib treatment. Of the 14 ALKi-naïve patients, ceritinib was effective in almost all patients, including a patient carrying a concomitant ERBB4 and HGF amplification., Conclusions: This exploratory analysis highlights the potential role of NGS in improving our understanding of response and resistance to ceritinib. It also illustrates that ceritinib is active against almost all ALK resistance mutations found in ALKi-pretreated patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01283516. Registered January 26, 2011, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01283516., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Lorlatinib, a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has substantial activity against ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study assessed the overall, intracranial, and extracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in ALK-positive NSCLC that progressed on second-generation ALK TKIs., Patients and Methods: In the ongoing phase II study (NCT01970865), patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC treated with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI ± chemotherapy were enrolled in expansion cohorts (EXP) based on treatment history. Overall, intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity were assessed independently per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1., Results: Of the 139 patients with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B-5), 28 received one prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B), 65 two prior ALK TKIs (EXP4), and 46 three prior ALK TKIs (EXP5). In EXP3B-5, the objective response rate (ORR) [95% confidence intervals] was 39.6% (31.4-48.2), intracranial ORR (IC-ORR) was 56.1% (42.4-69.3), extracranial ORR (EC-ORR) was 36.7% (28.7-45.3), median duration of response (DOR) was 9.6 months [5.6-16.7; IC-DOR, 12.4 (6.0-37.1); EC-DOR, 9.7 (6.1-33.3)], median progression-free survival was 6.6 (5.4-7.4) months, and median overall survival was 20.7 months (16.1-30.3). In EXP3B, the ORR was 42.9% (24.5-62.8), the IC-ORR was 66.7% (29.9-92.5), and the EC-ORR was 32.1% (15.9-52.4). In EXP4 and EXP5, the ORR was 38.7% (29.6-48.5), the IC-ORR was 54.2% (39.2-68.6), and the EC-ORR was 37.8% (28.8-47.5)., Conclusions: Lorlatinib had clinically meaningful intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity in the post-second-generation ALK TKI setting, with elevated intracranial versus extracranial ORR, particularly in patients with fewer lines of therapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure EF has served on advisory boards for AbbVie, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck KGaA, and Samsung; speakers' bureaus for Medscape, prIME Oncology, and TouchIME; advisory boards and speakers' bureaus for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda; and received research funding from Fundación Merck Salud and Grant for Oncology Innovation; independent member of the board for Grifols. ATS has served as a compensated consultant or received honoraria from Achilles, Archer, Ariad/Takeda, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Guardant, Ignyta, KSQ Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Natera, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, Servier, Syros, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and TP Therapeutics; received institutional research funding from Ariad, Ignyta, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech, and TP Therapeutics; received travel support from Genentech and Pfizer; and is currently an employee of Novartis. AB has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. DRC has received honoraria from AbbVie, Achilles Therapeutics, Apollomics, Archer, Arrys/Kyn, AstraZeneca, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Biothera, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CBT Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Elevation, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, Hansoh, Helsinn Therapeutics, Hengrui Pharmaceutical, Inivata, Lilly, Medtronic, Regeneron, Ribon Therapeutics, Roche, and Takeda; and received research funding from Takeda. BJS has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Genentech. JRB has served as a consultant for Astra Zeneca and Pfizer; has served on advisory boards for Bayer and Kura; and received institutional research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, unrelated to this work. TMB reports employment by Tennessee Oncology; has served as a consultant/advisor for Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Ignyta, Loxo Oncology, Moderna Therapeutics, and Pfizer; has served on speakers' bureaus for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Lilly; received research funding from AbbVie, Aileron Therapeutics, Amgen, ARMO BioSciences, Astellas Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Five Prime Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, Immunocore, Immunogen, Incyte, Jacobio, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, MabVax, MedImmune, Medpacto, Inc., Merck, Merrimack, Millennium, Mirati Therapeutics, Moderna Therapeutics, Novartis, Onyx, Peleton, Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Principia Biopharma, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline Therapeutics, Takeda, and Top Alliance BioSciences; and compensation for travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Sysmex. SP has received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory boards, and/or provided lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Vaccibody, from whom she has received honoraria (all fees to institution). FT, AA report employment by Pfizer. HT, GP, RW report employment by Pfizer and are Pfizer shareholders. BB reports sponsored research at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cristal Therapeutics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Ignyta, IPSEN, Inivata, Janssen, Merck KGaA, MSD, Nektar, Onxeo, OSE immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Tiziana Pharma, and Tolero Pharmaceuticals. Data sharing Upon request, and subject to certain criteria, conditions and exceptions (see https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information), Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data from Pfizer-sponsored global interventional clinical studies conducted for medicines, vaccines, and medical devices (1) for indications that have been approved in the US and/or EU or (2) in programs that have been terminated (i.e. development for all indications has been discontinued). Pfizer will also consider requests for the protocol, data dictionary, and statistical analysis plan. Data may be requested from Pfizer trials 24 months after study completion. The de-identified participant data will be made available to researchers whose proposals meet the research criteria and other conditions, and for which an exception does not apply, via a secure portal. To gain access, data requestors must enter into a data access agreement with Pfizer., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The ALEX study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the primary data cut-off (9 February 2017). We report mature PFS (cut-off: 30 November 2018) and overall survival (OS) data up to 5 years (cut-off: 29 November 2019)., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage III/IV ALK-positive NSCLC were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg (n = 152) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 151) until disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal or death. Primary end point: investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included objective response rate, OS and safety., Results: Mature PFS data showed significantly prolonged investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 versus 10.9 months crizotinib]. Median duration of OS follow-up: 48.2 months alectinib, 23.3 months crizotinib. OS data remain immature (37% of events). Median OS was not reached with alectinib versus 57.4 months with crizotinib (stratified HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98). The 5-year OS rate was 62.5% (95% CI 54.3-70.8) with alectinib and 45.5% (95% CI 33.6-57.4) with crizotinib, with 34.9% and 8.6% of patients still on study treatment, respectively. The OS benefit of alectinib was seen in patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline [HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.34-1.00)] and those without [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.45-1.26)]. Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib (28.1 versus 10.8 months), and no new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: Mature PFS data from ALEX confirmed significant improvement in PFS for alectinib over crizotinib in ALK-positive NSCLC. OS data remain immature, with a higher 5-year OS rate with alectinib versus crizotinib. This is the first global randomized study to show clinically meaningful improvement in OS for a next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive NSCLC., Clinical Trials Number: NCT02075840., Competing Interests: Disclosure TM declares a leadership role with Sanonics Ltd, Hutchinson ChiMed and AstraZeneca; honoraria/consulting fees from ACEA Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Celgene, Chimed, Cirina, Fishawack Facilitate, Ignyta, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, OncoGenex, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, SFJ Pharmaceutical, Takeda and Vertex; and research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceutical and XCovery. DRC declares honoraria/consulting fees from Abbvie, Ariad, Array, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Genoptix, G1 Therapeutics, Novartis, Orion and Roche/Genentech. SMG declares honoraria/consulting fees from Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech. RR has nothing to disclose. RD declares honoraria/consulting fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Yuhan, XCovery, SeattleGenetics and Celon Pharma. DWK declares non-financial support from Roche for travel to meetings for the study, and provision of writing assistance, medicines, equipment or administrative support; and non-financial support from Amgen and Daiichi-Sankyo for travel to advisory meetings. His institution has received funding from Alpha Biopharma, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, Ono, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, XCovery and Yuhan. MP declares honoraria/consulting fees from Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, MSD, Chugai, BMS, Amgen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca and Takeda; and institutional grants for clinical/translational research from Roche, AstraZeneca, Chugai and Takeda. SHIO declares honoraria/consultancy fees from ARIAD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and TP Therapeutics; speakers' bureau participation for ARIAD, AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech; research funding from ARIAD, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; and stock ownership in TP Therapeutics. JSA declares honoraria from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Menarini, Roche, Eisai, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS-Ono, MSD, Janssen, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda and Amgen. ATS is currently an employee of Novartis and has received honoraria or consulting fees from F. Hoffmann La-Roche Ltd, Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Ariad, Ignyta, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taiho, Blueprint medicines, LOXO, EMD Serono and Foundation medicine. WB, VS, MH, JN and TR are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. SP declares educational grants or honoraria for advisory board attendance and/or lectures from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Takeda., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation., Results: We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2)., Conclusions: : ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In the ongoing phase I PROFILE 1001 study, crizotinib showed antitumor activity in patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present updated antitumor activity, overall survival (OS) and safety data (additional 46.2 months follow-up) for patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC from PROFILE 1001., Patients and Methods: ROS1 status was determined by FISH or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. All patients received crizotinib at a starting dose of 250 mg twice daily., Results: Fifty-three patients received crizotinib, with a median duration of treatment of 22.4 months. At data cut-off, treatment was ongoing in 12 patients (23%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 72% [95% confidence interval (CI), 58% to 83%], including six confirmed complete responses and 32 confirmed partial responses; 10 patients had stable disease. Responses were durable (median duration of response 24.7 months; 95% CI, 15.2-45.3). ORRs were consistent across different patient subgroups. Median progression-free survival was 19.3 months (95% CI, 15.2-39.1). A total of 26 deaths (49%) occurred (median follow-up period of 62.6 months), and of the remaining 27 patients (51%), 14 (26%) were in follow-up at data cut-off. Median OS was 51.4 months (95% CI, 29.3 to not reached) and survival probabilities at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 79%, 67%, 53%, and 51%, respectively. No correlation was observed between OS and specific ROS1 fusion partner. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were mainly grade 1 or 2, per CTCAE v3.0. There were no grade ≥4 TRAEs and no TRAEs associated with permanent discontinuation. No new safety signals were reported with long-term crizotinib treatment., Conclusions: These findings serve as a new benchmark for OS in ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC, and continue to show the clinically meaningful benefit and safety of crizotinib in this molecular subgroup., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00585195., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: Effective targeted therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations remains an unmet need. This study investigated the antitumor effect of an irreversible pan-HER receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, pyrotinib., Patients and Methods: Using patient-derived organoids and xenografts established from an HER2-A775_G776YVMA-inserted advanced lung adenocarcinoma patient sample, we investigated the antitumor activity of pyrotinib. Preliminary safety and efficacy of pyrotinib in 15 HER2-mutant NSCLC patients in a phase II clinical trial are also presented., Results: Pyrotinib showed significant growth inhibition of organoids relative to afatinib in vitro (P = 0.0038). In the PDX model, pyrotinib showed a superior antitumor effect than afatinib (P = 0.0471) and T-DM1 (P = 0.0138). Mice treated with pyrotinib displayed significant tumor burden reduction (mean tumor volume, -52.2%). In contrast, afatinib (25.4%) and T-DM1 (10.9%) showed no obvious reduction. Moreover, pyrotinib showed a robust ability to inhibit pHER2, pERK and pAkt. In the phase II cohort of 15 patients with HER2-mutant NSCLC, pyrotinib 400 mg resulted in a objective response rate of 53.3% and a median progression-free survival of 6.4 months., Conclusion: Pyrotinib showed activity against NSCLC with HER2 exon 20 mutations in both patient-derived organoids and a PDX model. In the clinical trial, pyrotinib showed promising efficacy., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02535507., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX., Patients and Methods: Overall, 303 patients aged ≥18 years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8 weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression., Results: In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n = 64; crizotinib, n = 58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n = 21; crizotinib, n = 22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n = 25; crizotinib, n = 21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P < 0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not., Conclusion: Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.

Background: In clinical trials of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with crizotinib, evaluation of the relationship between the percentage of ALK-positive cells by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-particularly near the cut-off defining positive status-and clinical outcomes have been limited by small sample sizes., Patients and Methods: Data were pooled from three large prospective trials (one single-arm and two randomized versus chemotherapy) of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC determined by Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH using a cut-off of ≥15% ALK-positive cells. Logistic regression and proportional hazards regression analyses were used to explore the association of percent ALK-positive cells with objective response and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively., Results: Of 11 081 screened patients, 1958 (18%) were ALK positive, 7512 (68%) were ALK negative, and 1540 (14%) were uninformative. Median percentage of ALK-positive cells was 58% in ALK-positive patients and 2% in ALK-negative patients. Of ALK-positive patients, 5% had 15%-19% ALK-positive cells; of ALK-negative patients, 2% had 10%-14% ALK-positive cells. Objective response rate for ALK-positive, crizotinib-treated patients with ≥20% ALK-positive cells was 56% (n = 700/1246), 55% (n = 725/1312) for those with ≥15% ALK-positive cells, and 38% for those with 15%-19% ALK-positive cells (n = 25/66). As a continuous variable, higher percentages of ALK-positive cells were estimated to be associated with larger differences in objective response and PFS between crizotinib and chemotherapy; however, tests for interaction between treatment and percentage of ALK-positive cells were not significant (objective response, P = 0.054; PFS, P = 0.17)., Conclusions: Patients with ALK-positive NSCLC benefit from treatment with crizotinib across the full range of percentage of ALK-positive cells, supporting the clinical utility of the 15% cut-off. The small number of patients with scores near the cut-off warrant additional study given the potential for misclassification of ALK status due to technical or biologic reasons.

Background: HER2 mutations and amplifications have been identified as oncogenic drivers in lung cancers. Dacomitinib, an irreversible inhibitor of HER2, EGFR (HER1), and HER4 tyrosine kinases, has demonstrated activity in cell-line models with HER2 exon 20 insertions or amplifications. Here, we studied dacomitinib in patients with HER2-mutant or amplified lung cancers., Patients and Methods: As a prespecified cohort of a phase II study, we included patients with stage IIIB/IV lung cancers with HER2 mutations or amplification. We gave oral dacomitinib at 30-45 mg daily in 28-day cycles. End points included partial response rate, overall survival, and toxicity., Results: We enrolled 30 patients with HER2-mutant (n = 26, all in exon 20 including 25 insertions and 1 missense mutation) or HER2-amplified lung cancers (n = 4). Three of 26 patients with tumors harboring HER2 exon 20 mutations [12%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 30%] had partial responses lasting 3+, 11, and 14 months. No partial responses occurred in four patients with tumors with HER2 amplifications. The median overall survival was 9 months from the start of dacomitinib (95% CI 7-21 months) for patients with HER2 mutations and ranged from 5 to 22 months with amplifications. Treatment-related toxicities included diarrhea (90%; grade 3/4: 20%/3%), dermatitis (73%; grade 3/4: 3%/0%), and fatigue (57%; grade 3/4: 3%/0%). One patient died on study likely due to an interaction of dacomitinib with mirtazapine., Conclusions: Dacomitinib produced objective responses in patients with lung cancers with specific HER2 exon 20 insertions. This observation validates HER2 exon 20 insertions as actionable targets and justifies further study of HER2-targeted agents in specific HER2-driven lung cancers., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT00818441., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib combined with vorinostat in patients with solid tumors., Patients and Methods: Patients were treated with sorafenib 400 mg po bid daily and vorinostat 200-400 mg po days 1-14 of a 21 day cycle to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The tolerability and efficacy of the RP2D was further tested in two cohorts of 6-12 patients each with advanced RCC and NSCLC., Results: 17 patients were treated in the dose escalation phase that established the RP2D at sorafenib 400 mg po bid daily, vorinostat 300 mg po days 1-14. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) included intolerable grade 2 hand-foot syndrome and multiple grade 1 toxicities causing dose interruption for more than 14 days. Despite good tolerance in the all-comers population, the RP2D was poorly tolerated in the RCC and NSCLC cohorts with the majority being unable to finish 2 full cycles of therapy. Although there were no confirmed responses, 1 patient each with NSCLC adenocarcinoma and renal sarcoma had unconfirmed partial responses and 5 of 8 patients with RCC having durable minor responses (11-26 %), including 2 who were on treatment for nearly a year., Conclusions: Although tolerable in other tumor types, sorafenib 400 mg po bid with vorinostat 300 mg po daily days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle is not tolerable without dose reductions/delays in RCC and NSCLC patients. These patients may require lower doses than the RP2D explored within this study. No confirmed responses were seen but minor responses particularly in RCC were observed.

Background: BIBF 1120 is an oral potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, fibroblast growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, the three key receptor families involved in angiogenesis. This phase I, open-label dose-escalation study investigated BIBF 1120 combined with paclitaxel (Taxol) and carboplatin in first-line patients with advanced (IIIB/IV) non-small-cell lung cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients received BIBF 1120 (starting dose 50 mg b.i.d.) on days 2-21 and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) and carboplatin [area under curve (AUC)=6 mg/ml/min] on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Primary end points were safety and BIBF 1120 maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in this combination. Pharmacokinetics (PK) profiles were evaluated., Results: Twenty-six patients were treated (BIBF 1120 50-250 mg b.i.d.). BIBF 1120 MTD was 200 mg b.i.d. in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin. Six dose-limiting toxicity events occurred during treatment cycle 1 (liver enzyme elevations, thrombocytopenia, abdominal pain, and rash). Best responses included 7 confirmed partial responses (26.9%); 10 patients had stable disease. BIBF 1120 200 mg b.i.d. had no clinically relevant influence on the PK of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 6 mg/ml/min and vice versa., Conclusions: BIBF 1120 MTD was 200 mg b.i.d when given with paclitaxel and carboplatin; this combination demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. No relevant changes in PK parameters of the backbone chemotherapeutic agents or BIBF 1120 were observed.

Crizotinib is a potent small-molecule inhibitor of ALK tyrosine kinase receptor (anaplastic lymphoma kinase; ALK) and hepatocyte growth factor receptor (HGF receptor, proto-oncogene c-Met). A range of tumors, including subsets of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), anaplastic large cell lymphoma and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors harbor an ALK rearrangement that leads to oncogenic activation of ALK. Crizotinib has demonstrated preclinical and clinical activity against such malignancies through inhibition of ALK, and patients harboring ALK- rearranged NSCLC have demonstrated high response rates and prolonged progression-free survival in phase I and II studies. In August 2011, crizotinib was approved for the treatment of advanced ALK-positive NSCLC., (Copyright 2012 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors. All rights reserved.)

Background: New oncology drugs are being developed in conjunction with companion diagnostics with approval restricting their use to certain biomarker-positive subgroups. We examined the impact of different predictive biomarker screening techniques and population enrichment criteria on the cost-effectiveness of targeted drugs in lung cancer, using ALK and crizotinib to build the initial model., Methods: Health economic modeling of cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year was based on literature review and expert opinion. The modeled population represented advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), eligible for predictive biomarker screening with prescribing restricted to biomarker-positive patients., Results: For assays costing $1400 per person, cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for ALK screening all advanced NSCLC, excluding treatment cost, is $106,707. This falls to $4756 when only a highly enriched population is screened (increasing biomarker frequency from 1.6 to 35.9%). However, the same enrichment involves missing 56% patients who segregate within the unscreened group. Cheaper screening tests that miss some true positives can be more cost-effective if proportional reductions in cost exceed proportion of subjects missed. Generic modeling of idealised screening assays, including treatment cost, reveals a dominant effect of screening cost per person at low biomarker frequencies. Cost-effectiveness of <$100,000 per QALY gained is not achievable at biomarker frequencies <5% (with drug costs $1-5000 per month and screening costs $600-1400 per person)., Interpretation: Cost-effectiveness of oncology drugs whose prescribing is restricted to biomarker-positive subgroups should address the cost of detecting marker-positive patients. The cost of screening dominates at low frequencies and strategies to improve cost-effectiveness based on the assay cost, drug cost and the group screened should be considered in these scenarios.

Purpose: The primary objective of this phase I dose-escalation study was to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib plus pemetrexed in patients with advanced cancer., Methods: Using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, patients received oral sunitinib qd by continuous daily dosing (CDD schedule; 37.5 or 50 mg) or 2 weeks on/1 week off treatment schedule (Schedule 2/1; 50 mg). Pemetrexed (300-500 mg/m(2) IV) was administered q3w. At the proposed recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), additional patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were enrolled., Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled on the CDD schedule and seven on Schedule 2/1. MTDs were sunitinib 37.5 mg/day (CDD/RP2D) or 50 mg/day (Schedule 2/1) with pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade (G) 5 cerebral hemorrhage, G3 febrile neutropenia, and G3 anorexia. Common G3/4 drug-related non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) at the CDD MTD included fatigue, anorexia, and hand-foot syndrome. G3/4 hematologic AEs included lymphopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. No significant drug-drug interactions were identified. Five (24%) NSCLC patients had partial responses., Conclusions: In patients with advanced solid malignancies, the MTD of sunitinib plus 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed was 37.5 mg/day (CDD schedule) or 50 mg/day (Schedule 2/1). The CDD schedule MTD was tolerable and demonstrated promising clinical benefit in NSCLC.

The treatment of advanced non � small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increasingly involves the use of molecularly targeted therapy with activity against either the tumor directly, or indirectly, through activity against host-derived mechanisms of tumor support such as angiogenesis. The most well studied signaling pathway associated with angiogenesis is the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, and the only antiangiogenic agent currently approved for the treatment of NSCLC is bevacizumab, an antibody targeted against VEGF. More recently, preclinical data supporting the role of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) signaling in angiogenesis have been reported. The platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathways may also stimulate tumor growth directly through activation of downstream mitogenic signaling cascades. In addition, 1 or both of these pathways have been associated with resistance to agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and VEGF. A number of agents that target FGF and/or PDGF signaling are now in development for the treatment of NSCLC. This review will summarize the potential molecular roles of PDGFR and FGFR in tumor growth and angiogenesis, as well as discuss the current clinical status of PDGFR and FGFR inhibitors in clinical development.

Dysphagia occurs in only a small percentage of patients with lung cancer, but the frequency of this cancer means that large numbers are affected. Non-quantitative analysis of a large Scottish series of lung cancer cases indicates the following eight broad categories of dysphagia according to underlying mechanisms: mediastinal disease; cervical lymphadenopathy; brainstem lesions; gastrointestinal tract metastases; associated systemic disorders; second primaries; oropharyngeal and oesophageal infections; and radiation-induced oesophageal toxicity.