Search

Background: Differential diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in hospitalized patients is crucial for appropriate treatment choice., Objective: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STMs) and their combinations for the differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC subtypes., Methods: Between 2000 and 2003, 10 established STMs were assessed retrospectively in 311 patients with NSCLC, 128 with SCLC prior systemic first-line therapy and 51 controls with benign lung diseases (BLD), by automatized electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technology. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of both individual and multiple STMs with corresponding sensitivities at 90% specificity. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD guidelines) were followed., Results: CYFRA 21-1 (cytokeratin-19 fragment), CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) and NSE (neuron specific enolase) were significantly higher in all lung cancers vs BLD, reaching AUCs of 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.87), 0.78 (0.73-0.84), and 0.88 (0.84-0.93), respectively. By the three marker combination, the discrimination between benign and all malignant cases was improved resulting in an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.96). In NSCLC vs. BLD, CYFRA 21-1, CEA and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), 0.80 (0.74-0.85), and 0.85 (0.79-0.91). The three marker combination also improved the AUC: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89-0.96). In SCLC vs. BLD, ProGRP (pro-gastrin-releasing peptide) and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively, and slightly improved AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) when in combination. Finally, discrimination between SCLC and NSCLC was possible by ProGRP (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.81-0.91), NSE (AUC 0.83; 0.78-0.88) and CYFRA 21-1 (AUC 0.69; 0.64-0.75) and by the combination of the 3 STMs (AUC 0.93; 0.91-0.96), with a sensitivity of 88% at 90% specificity., Conclusions: The results confirm the power of STM combinations for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer from benign lesions and between histological lung cancer subtypes.

Background: Lung cancer is a major burden to global health and is still among the most frequent and most lethal malignant diseases. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in a variety of processes including tumorigenesis, formation of a tumor microenvironment and metastasis. It is therefore a potential prognostic biomarker in malignant diseases., Objective: In this study, we investigated the applicability of MIF in serum samples as a biomarker in lung cancer., Methods: In a retrospective approach, we analyzed the sera of 79 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 14 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) before the start of chemotherapy, as well as before the second and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively. Serum MIF levels were measured using a sandwich immunoassay with a sulfo-tag-labelled detection antibody, while pro-gastrin releasing peptide (proGRP) levels were determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay., Results: No difference in serum MIF levels between responders and non-responders to chemotherapy was observed at all time points, while proGRP levels were significantly lower in responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.012). No differences in biomarker levels depending on the histopathological classification of NSCLC patients was found. Moreover, in ROC curve analyses MIF was not able to distinguish between responders and non-responders to therapy. proGRP could differentiate between responders and non-responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) with sensitivities of 43% at 90% and 95% specificity, respectively. Likewise, proGRP yielded significantly longer survival times of patients with low proGRP concentrations before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) in Kaplan-Meier analyses, yet MIF showed no significant differences in survival times at all time points. Comparison with the biomarkers CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the same cohort showed that these established biomarkers clearly performed superior to MIF and proGRP., Conclusions: From the present results, there is no indication that serum MIF may serve as a biomarker in prognosis and monitoring of response to therapy in lung cancer. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the inclusion of a larger NSCLC and a smaller SCLC subgroup, the classical chemotherapeutic treatment, the use of a non-diagnostic immunoassay (RUO-test) for MIF measurement and the lack of a validation cohort. Strengths of the study are its highly standardized procedures concerning sample collection, preanalytic treatment, measurements and quality control of the laboratory assays.

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab and docetaxel in patients with and without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases in the phase III OAK trial., Materials and Methods: Patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab or 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel every 3 weeks until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical atezolizumab benefit. Patients with asymptomatic, treated supratentorial metastases were eligible. Patients had brain scans before enrollment; follow-up brain scans and treatment were required when clinically indicated., Results: Approximately 14% of patients in each arm had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (61/425 in the atezolizumab arm and 62/425 in the docetaxel arm). Fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and treatment-related neurologic AEs were reported with atezolizumab than with docetaxel, regardless of history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. In patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases, median overall survival (OS) was longer with atezolizumab than with docetaxel (16.0 vs 11.9 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.13). Median OS was also longer with atezolizumab in patients without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (13.2 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88). Landmark analyses showed that patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases had a lower probability of developing new symptomatic brain lesions with atezolizumab vs docetaxel at 6-24 months. Patients without a history had a lower probability with atezolizumab at 18-24+ months., Conclusion: Atezolizumab had an acceptable neurologic safety profile, showed a trend toward an OS benefit, and led to a prolonged time to radiographic identification of new symptomatic brain lesions compared with docetaxel in patients who had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02008227., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer based on OAK-a randomised, phase III trial that showed significantly improved survival with atezolizumab versus docetaxel regardless of PD-L1 expression. With longer follow-up, we summarised the characteristics of long-term survivors (LTSs)., Methods: In OAK (NCT02008227), patients were randomised 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or docetaxel until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. Overall survival was evaluated after a 26-month minimum follow-up, including in patient subgroups defined by best overall response (BOR). LTSs were defined as patients who lived ≥24 months since randomisation. Non-LTSs died within 24 months, and patients censored before 24 months were excluded from the analysis. The baseline characteristics, including biomarkers, BOR, subsequent non-protocol therapy (NPT) and safety, are reported., Results: Survival benefit with atezolizumab was observed across all patient subgroups defined by BOR. More atezolizumab-treated patients were LTSs versus those treated with docetaxel (28% versus 18%). Most atezolizumab responders were LTSs (77%) versus only 48% of docetaxel responders. However, 21% of atezolizumab-arm LTSs had progressive disease (PD) as BOR, and more atezolizumab-arm LTSs than non-LTSs continued treatment post-PD. Fifty-two percent of docetaxel-arm LTSs received immunotherapy as subsequent NPT. Despite extended treatment duration in atezolizumab-arm LTSs (median, 18 months), atezolizumab was well tolerated., Conclusions: After >2 years of follow-up, atezolizumab continued to provide durable survival benefit versus docetaxel, with tolerable safety. Atezolizumab-arm LTSs were enriched for patients with high PD-L1 expression and included PD-L1-negative patients. Long-term survival was not limited to responders., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Cancer immunotherapy may alter tumor biology such that treatment effects can extend beyond radiographic progression. In the randomized, phase III OAK study of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) versus docetaxel in advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab was observed in the overall patient population, without improvement in objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS). We examine the benefit-risk of atezolizumab treatment beyond progression (TBP)., Methods: Eight hundred fifty patients included in the OAK primary efficacy analysis were evaluated. Atezolizumab was continued until loss of clinical benefit. Docetaxel was administered until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity; no crossover to atezolizumab was allowed. ORR, PFS, post-PD OS, target lesion change, and safety were evaluated., Results: In atezolizumab-arm patients, ORR was 16% versus 14% and median PFS was 4.2 versus 2.8 months per immune-modified RECIST versus RECIST v1.1. The median post-PD OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3-14.9) in 168 atezolizumab-arm patients continuing TBP, 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.0-12.1) in 94 patients switching to nonprotocol therapy, and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-3.4) in 70 patients receiving no further therapy. Of the atezolizumab TBP patients, 7% achieved a post-progression response in target lesions and 49% had stable target lesions. Atezolizumab TBP was not associated with increased safety risks., Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the post-PD efficacy and safety data from OAK are consistent with a positive benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab TBP in patients performing well clinically at the time of PD., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The randomized phase III OAK (a study of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel in participants with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC] who have failed platinum-containing therapy) trial investigated the anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab for advanced or metastatic, previously treated, NSCLC. Atezolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87; P = .0003; median OS, 13.8 vs. 9.6 months, respectively). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected to evaluate disease-related symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to support the finding of a survival benefit., Patients and Methods: The first 850 patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks). PROs were collected on day 1 of cycle 1, day 1 of every subsequent cycle, and at the end-of-treatment visit for patients who completed ≥ 1 baseline and 1 postbaseline PRO assessment. The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire and lung cancer module were used to assess PROs., Results: Atezolizumab delayed the time to deterioration (TTD) in physical function (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98) and role function (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.00) and numerically improved patients' HRQoL from baseline compared with docetaxel. Atezolizumab also prolonged the TTD in chest pain (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .0823), although both arms showed an objective reduction relative to baseline. Overall, the patients had no clinically significant worsening in treatment-related symptoms, although the scores favored atezolizumab., Conclusion: These PRO data support the clinical benefit of atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Atezolizumab prolonged the TTD of patients' limitations in role and physical functions compared with docetaxel., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC in the primary (n = 850) and secondary (n = 1225) efficacy populations of the randomized phase III OAK study (respectively referred to as the intention-to-treat [ITT] 850 [ITT850] and ITT1225) at an updated data cutoff were assessed., Methods: Patients received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, or docetaxel, 75 mg/m 2 , intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the ITT population and programmed death-ligand 1-expressing subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of subsequent immunotherapy use in the docetaxel arm on the observed survival benefit with atezolizumab., Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in the updated ITT850 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.0006) and the ITT1225 (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.92, p = 0.0012) after minimum follow-up times of 26 and 21 months, respectively. Improved survival with atezolizumab was observed across programmed death-ligand 1 and histological subgroups. In the immunotherapy sensitivity analysis, the relative OS benefit with atezolizumab was slightly greater in the ITT850 (HR = 0.69) and ITT1225 (HR = 0.74) than the conventional OS estimate. Fewer patients receiving atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (14.9%) than did patients receiving docetaxel (42.4%); no grade 5 adverse events related to atezolizumab were observed., Conclusions: The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This exploratory subgroup analysis of the MARQUEE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib plus tivantinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC., Methods: Patients with advanced, nonsquamous, EGFR and mesenchymal-epithelial transition inhibitor-naive NSCLC previously treated with one or two lines of systemic therapy were randomized to oral erlotinib (150 mg once daily) plus tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) or to erlotinib plus placebo. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: Among 1048 patients enrolled, 109 (10.4%) had EGFR-mutant disease. Erlotinib plus tivantinib improved progression-free survival in this subpopulation; median progression-free survival was 13.0 months for erlotinib plus tivantinib (n = 56) and 7.5 months for erlotinib plus placebo (n = 53) (hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.77). Deaths occurred in 73 patients (67%), and median overall survival was 25.5 months in the erlotinib plus tivantinib arm versus 20.3 months in the erlotinib plus placebo arm (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-1.08). Common adverse events included diarrhea, rash, and asthenia. Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were more common with erlotinib plus tivantinib., Conclusions: Erlotinib plus tivantinib was tolerable and showed improved efficacy over erlotinib monotherapy in previously treated EGFR-mutant NSCLC., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Purpose Patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This randomized, double-blind, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line ipilimumab or placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous NSCLC. Patients and Methods Patients with stage IV or recurrent chemotherapy-naïve squamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive paclitaxel and carboplatin plus blinded ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks on a phased induction schedule comprising six chemotherapy cycles, with ipilimumab or placebo from cycles 3 to 6 and then, after induction treatment, ipilimumab or placebo maintenance every 12 weeks for patients with stable disease or better. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients receiving at least one dose of blinded study therapy. Results Of 956 randomly assigned patients, 749 received at least one dose of blinded study therapy (chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, n = 388; chemotherapy plus placebo, n = 361). Median OS was 13.4 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab and 12.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.07; P = .25). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for both groups (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), any-grade serious TRAEs, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab (51%, 33%, and 28%, respectively) than with chemotherapy plus placebo (35%, 10%, and 7%, respectively). Seven treatment-related deaths occurred with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, and one occurred with chemotherapy plus placebo. Conclusion The addition of ipilimumab to first-line chemotherapy did not prolong OS compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The safety profile of chemotherapy plus ipilimumab was consistent with that observed in previous lung and melanoma studies. Ongoing studies are evaluating ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab in this population.

Background: Nintedanib is a triple angiokinase inhibitor approved with docetaxel for adenocarcinoma non-small cell lung cancer after first-line chemotherapy (FLT). In the phase III LUME-Lung 1 study, overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with nintedanib/docetaxel than with placebo/docetaxel in all adenocarcinoma patients and those with time from start of FLT (TSFLT) <9 months., Objective: This study sought to extend analyses from the LUME-Lung 1 study, specifically for adenocarcinoma patients, to explore the impact of clinically relevant characteristics on outcomes such as time to progression after FLT., Patients and Methods: Exploratory analyses were conducted of the overall and European LUME-Lung 1 adenocarcinoma population according to age, prior therapy, and tumor dynamics. Analyses also used TSFLT and time from end of FLT (TEFLT)., Results: Treatment with nintedanib/docetaxel significantly improved OS in European patients independently of age or prior therapy. Analyses of several patient subgroups showed improvements in median OS: TSFLT <6 months, 9.5 versus 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.98); chemorefractory to FLT, 9.1 versus 6.9 months (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99); progressive disease (PD) as best response to FLT, 9.8 versus 6.3 months (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94); TEFLT ≤6 months, 11.3 versus 8.2 months (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92); and TEFLT <3 months, 11.0 versus 8.0 months (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94)., Conclusions: Nintedanib/docetaxel demonstrated significant OS benefits in adenocarcinoma patients, which were more pronounced in patients with shorter TSFLT or TEFLT, or with PD as best response to FLT. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00805194.

Background: Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is a rare disease with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Neuroendocrine tumors frequently show overactivation of the mTOR pathway. Based on the good activity of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in different types of neuroendocrine tumors and the results of a previous phase I trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as upfront treatment for patients with advanced LCNEC., Patients and Methods: In this prospective, multicenter phase II trial chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV LCNEC received 5 mg everolimus daily combined with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks for a maximum of four cycles followed by maintenance everolimus 5 mg daily until progression. Efficacy parameters were determined based on central radiologic assessment., Results: Forty-nine patients with a mean age of 62 ±9 years and a predominance of male (71%) smokers (98%) were enrolled in 10 German centers. The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31%-60%), the disease control rate 74% (CI 59%-85%), the median progression-free survival 4.4 (CI 3.2-6) months and the median overall survival 9.9 (CI 6.9-11.7) months. The progression-free survival rate at 3 months (primary end point) was 76% (CI 64%-88%) according to Kaplan-Meier. Grade-3/4 toxicities occurred in 51% of patients and mainly consisted of general physical health deterioration (8%), cytopenias (24%), infections (10%) and gastrointestinal problems (8%). Typical everolimus-related adverse events, like stomatitis, rash and ocular problems occurred only in a minority of patients (<15%) and were exclusively of grade 1-2., Conclusion: Everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment for patients with metastatic LCNEC., Registered Clinical Trial Numbers: EudraCT number 2010-022273-34, NCT01317615., (© The Author 2017. 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.)

Objectives: Patritumab is a fully human anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) antibody that blocks activation by its ligand, heregulin (HRG). Preclinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of patritumab in aberrantly high HRG-expressing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the phase II randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study HERALD (n=212 patients with NSCLC), patritumab plus erlotinib did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus erlotinib. The current study examined whether soluble HRG (sHRG) level in serum correlated with the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib., Materials and Methods: Serum was obtained from participants prior to treatment (n=202). sHRG level was measured using a validated quantitative immune assay, and correlations with survival were blindly assessed., Results: sHRG level was various (-1346-11,772pg/mL). Participants were divided into the sHRG-high or -low subgroups at the concentration defining near the third quartile, 980pg/mL. Patritumab plus erlotinib significantly improved PFS relative to placebo in the sHRG-high subgroup (n=46, hazard ratio 0.42 [0.19-0.96], p=0.0327). In contrast, the HRG-low subgroup (n=148) had no improvement in PFS with patritumab., Conclusion: sHRG seems to be a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib in NSCLC patients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polo like kinase 1 (PLK1) is frequently upregulated in tumors and is thus viewed as a promising therapeutic target in various cancers. Several PLK1 inhibitors have recently been developed and clinically tested in solid cancers, albeit with limited success. So far, no predictive biomarkers for PLK1 inhibitors have been established. To this end, we conducted a post-hoc biomarker analysis of tumor samples from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with the PLK1 inhibitor BI2536 in a phase II study., Methods: We analyzed formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surplus tumor tissue from 47 study patients using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and DNA sequencing of KRAS, EGFR, BRAF, and PIK3CA., Results: KRAS-mutated patients showed numerically prolonged progression-free survival, but statistical significance was not established. Interestingly, when pathways rather than single genes were analyzed, a positive correlation between IHC staining of activated ERK (p-ERK) and mutated KRAS was detected, whereas KRAS mutation status was found to be negatively correlated with activated AKT (p-AKT)., Conclusion: With this hypothesis-generating study in BI2531-treated patients, we could not establish a correlation between KRAS mutations and relevant clinical endpoints. Future clinical trials with concomitant systematic biosampling and comprehensive molecular analyses are required to identify biomarkers predictive for response to PLK1 inhibitors., (© 2017 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)

Objectives: LUME-Lung 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial investigating nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with nintedanib+docetaxel in the overall population and overall survival was significantly improved in the pre-specified analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the frequency of characteristic adverse events (AEs) commonly seen with existing anti-angiogenic agents., Materials and Methods: The incidence and intensity of AEs were evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication (N=1307) and for the two main histologies: adenocarcinoma (n=653) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; n=553). AEs of special interest were analyzed by category, preferred term, and worst CTCAE grade and included perforation, hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events, and skin disorders., Results and Conclusion: The incidence of patients with all-grade gastrointestinal (GI) perforations was low and balanced between arms (0.5% in both) and across histologies; the incidence of non-GI perforations was 1.2% with nintedanib+docetaxel versus 0.2% with placebo+docetaxel. The incidence of some events was higher with nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel; hypertension (3.5% vs 0.9%), rash (11.0% vs 8.1%), and cutaneous adverse reactions (13.0% vs 10.7%). Rash and cutaneous adverse reactions were predominantly Grade 1-2 with both treatments. The incidence of all-grade bleeding was also slightly higher in nintedanib+docetaxel-treated patients (14.1% vs 11.6%) driven by between-treatment differences in the SCC subpopulation; most events were Grade 1-2. The proportion of patients with a thromboembolic event was low and comparable between arms for all grades (5.1% vs 4.6%) and Grade ≥3 (2.1% vs 3.1%). Safety evaluation of the LUME-Lung 1 study showed that the frequency of AEs commonly associated with other anti-angiogenic agents was lower with nintedanib+docetaxel. Survival benefits from addition of nintedanib to docetaxel in patients with adenocarcinoma after first-line therapy can be achieved alongside a manageable safety profile., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Tivantinib, a MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated increased anticancer activity in preclinical and early clinical studies when combined with erlotinib. Our study aimed to confirm efficacy and safety of the combination in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with one to two systemic regimens, including a platinum doublet, were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib 150 mg daily plus oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily (E + T) or erlotinib plus placebo (E + P) until disease progression. Tumor specimens were evaluated for EGFR and KRAS mutations, MET expression, and MET gene amplification. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), OS in molecular subgroups, and safety., Results: The study enrolled 1,048 patients and was discontinued for futility at the interim analysis. OS did not improve with E + T versus E + P (median OS, 8.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .81), even though PFS increased (median PFS, 3.6 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested OS improvement in patients with high MET expression (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.01). Most common adverse events occurring with E + T versus E + P were rash (33.1% v 37.3%, respectively), diarrhea (34.6% v 41.0%), asthenia or fatigue (43.5% v 38.1%), and neutropenia (grade 3 to 4; 8.5% v 0.8%)., Conclusion: E + T was well tolerated and increased PFS but did not improve OS in the overall nonsquamous NSCLC population., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

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

Background: During early clinical development, prospective identification of a predictive biomarker and validation of an assay method may not always be feasible. Dichotomizing a continuous biomarker measure to classify responders also leads to challenges. We present a case study of a prospective-retrospective approach for a continuous biomarker identified after patient enrollment but defined prospectively before the unblinding of data. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach and the challenges encountered in its practical application are also provided., Methods: HERALD (NCT02134015) was a double-blind, phase 2 study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized to erlotinib with placebo or with high or low doses of patritumab, a monoclonal antibody targeted against human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3). While the primary objective was to assess safety and progression-free survival (PFS), a secondary objective was to determine a single predictive biomarker hypothesis to identify subjects most likely to benefit from the addition of patritumab. Although not identified as the primary biomarker in the study protocol, on the basis of preclinical results from 2 independent laboratories, expression levels of the HER3 ligand heregulin (HRG) were prospectively declared the predictive biomarker before data unblinding but after subject enrollment. An assay to measure HRG mRNA was developed and validated. Other biomarkers, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status, were also evaluated in an exploratory fashion. The cutoff value for high vs. low HRG mRNA levels was set at the median delta threshold cycle. A maximum likelihood analysis was performed to evaluate the provisional cutoff. The relationship of HRG values to PFS hazard ratios (HRs) was assessed as a measure of internal validation. Additional NSCLC samples were analyzed to characterize HRG mRNA distribution., Results: The subgroup of patients with high HRG mRNA levels ("HRG-high") demonstrated clinical benefit from patritumab treatment with HRs of 0.37 (P = 0.0283) and 0.29 (P = 0.0027) in the high- and low-dose patritumab arms, respectively. However, only 102 of the 215 randomized patients (47.4%) had sufficient tumor samples for HRG mRNA measurement. Maximum likelihood analysis showed that the provisional cutoff was within the optimal range. In the placebo arm, the HRG-high subgroup demonstrated worse prognosis compared with HRG-low. A continuous relationship was observed between increased HRG mRNA levels and lower HR. Additional NSCLC samples (N = 300) demonstrated a similar unimodal distribution to that observed in this study, suggesting that the defined cutoff may be applicable to future NSCLC studies., Conclusions: The prospective-retrospective approach was successful in clinically validating a probable predictive biomarker. Post hoc in vitro studies and statistical analyses permitted further testing of the underlying assumptions. However, limitations of this analysis include the incomplete collection of adequate tumor tissue and a lack of stratification. In a phase 3 study, findings are being confirmed, and the HRG cutoff value is being further refined., Clinicaltrialsgov Number: NCT02134015.

Background: Continuation or 'switch' maintenance therapy is commonly used in patients with advancd non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we evaluated the efficacy of the telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, as switch maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC., Patients and Methods: The primary end point of this open-label, randomized phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with non-progressive, advanced NSCLC after platinum-based doublet (first-line) chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab), any histology, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were eligible. Randomization was 2 : 1 in favor of imetelstat, administered at 9.4 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle, or observation. Telomere length (TL) biomarker exploratory analysis was carried out in tumor tissue by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and telomerase fluorescence in situ hybridization., Results: Of 116 patients enrolled, 114 were evaluable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with imetelstat. Median PFS was 2.8 and 2.6 months for imetelstat-treated versus control [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844; 95% CI 0.54-1.31; P = 0.446]. Median survival time favored imetelstat (14.3 versus 11.5 months), although not significantly (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.41-1.12; P = 0.129). Exploratory analysis demonstrated a trend toward longer median PFS (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.14-1.3; P = 0.124) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.11-1.46; P = 0.155) in imetelstat-treated patients with short TL, but no improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with long TL (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.88; and HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.2-1.28; P = 0.145)., Conclusions: Maintenance imetelstat failed to improve PFS in advanced NSCLC patients responding to first-line therapy. There was a trend toward a improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with short TL. Short TL as a predictive biomarker will require further investigation for the clinical development of imetelstat., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: The LUME-Lung 1 trial (NCT00805194; Study 1199.13) demonstrated a significant overall survival (OS) advantage for nintedanib plus docetaxel compared with placebo plus docetaxel as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and adenocarcinoma histology. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) are reported here., Methods: PROs were assessed at screening, on Day 1 of each 21-day treatment cycle, at the end of active treatment, and at the first follow-up visit. PRO instruments were the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 supplement, and the EuroQol disease-generic questionnaire (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS). Analyses of PRO items for lung cancer-specific symptoms of cough, dyspnoea and pain were prespecified., Results: Rates of questionnaire completion were high. There was no significant difference in time to deterioration of global health status/QoL, or symptoms of cough, dyspnoea or pain, between the treatment groups for both the overall study population and the adenocarcinoma population. Time to deterioration of some gastrointestinal events was shorter with nintedanib versus placebo. Longitudinal analysis for the adenocarcinoma population showed comparable changes between the groups in symptom scores over time, with numerical differences in favour of nintedanib for cough and pain scales, and significant reductions in some pain items with nintedanib versus placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in EQ-5D or EQ-VAS between the groups., Conclusion: The significant OS benefit observed with the addition of nintedanib to docetaxel therapy was achieved with no detrimental effect on patient self-reported QoL., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Amrubicin, a third-generation anthracycline and potent topoisomerase II inhibitor, showed promising activity in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in phase II trials. This phase III trial compared the safety and efficacy of amrubicin versus topotecan as second-line treatment for SCLC., Patients and Methods: A total of 637 patients with refractory or sensitive SCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 to 21-day cycles of amrubicin 40 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on days 1 to 3 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 to 5. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety., Results: Median OS was 7.5 months with amrubicin versus 7.8 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.880; P = .170); in refractory patients, median OS was 6.2 and 5.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.77; P = .047). Median PFS was 4.1 months with amrubicin and 3.5 months with topotecan (HR, 0.802; P = .018). ORR was 31.1% with amrubicin and 16.9% with topotecan (odds ratio, 2.223; P < .001). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the amrubicin and topotecan arms were: neutropenia (41% v 54%; P = .004), thrombocytopenia (21% v 54%; P < .001), anemia (16% v 31%; P < .001), infections (16% v 10%; P = .043), febrile neutropenia (10% v 3%; P = .003), and cardiac disorders (5% v 5%; P = .759); transfusion rates were 32% and 53% (P < .001), respectively. NQO1 polymorphisms did not influence safety outcomes., Conclusion: Amrubicin did not improve survival when compared with topotecan in the second-line treatment of patients with SCLC. OS did not differ significantly between treatment groups, although an improvement in OS was noted in patients with refractory disease treated with amrubicin., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: DISRUPT evaluated whether adding the vascular-disrupting agent ombrabulin to a taxane-platinum doublet in the first-line setting improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients were randomised to ombrabulin 35 mg/m(2) or placebo followed by a taxane-platinum regimen every 3 weeks., Results: Overall, 176 patients were randomised. After 124 events, median PFS was not significantly improved with ombrabulin vs placebo (5.65 vs 5.45 months; HR 0.948; 60% CI 0.813-1.106; one-sided P=0.39). The two groups showed similar overall survival (median 11.0 months in both groups), objective response rate (32% ombrabulin; 31% placebo) and safety profiles., Conclusion: This study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving PFS by adding ombrabulin to a taxane-platinum regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pemetrexed and erlotinib have been approved as second-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel phase II study assessed efficacy and safety of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC., Methods: NSCLC stage III-IV patients who failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, ≥ 1 measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 were eligible. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) with vitamin B12 and folic acid q3w alone or combined with erlotinib 150 mg daily. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), response and toxicity., Results: Of 165 randomised non-squamous patients, 159 were treated (pemetrexed: 83; pemetrexed+erlotinib: 76). The median PFS (months; 95% CI) was 2.89 (1.94, 3.38) for pemetrexed versus 3.19 (2.86, 4.70) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% CI: (0.44, 0.90); P = 0.0047). The median OS (months; 95% CI) was 7.75 (5.29, 10.41) for pemetrexed versus 11.83 (8.18, 16.66) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98; P = 0.019). The median TTTF (months: 95% CI) was 2.4 (1.74, 2.99) for pemetrexed versus 3.0 (2.23, 4.07) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89; P = 0.0034). One patient died in pemetrexed+erlotinib arm due to febrile neutropenia. Grades 3/4 drug-related toxicities (in ≥ 5% of patients) in pemetrexed/pemetrexed+erlotinib were febrile neutropenia (2.4%/10.5%), diarrhoea (1.2%/5.3%), rash (1.2%/9.2%); anaemia (6%/11.8%), leukopenia (9.6%/23.7%), neutropenia (9.6%/25.0%), and thrombocytopenia (4.8%/14.5%)., Conclusions: Pemetrexed+erlotinib treatment significantly improved PFS, OS and TTTF in 2nd line non-squamous NSCLC and was associated with an increase in grade 3/4 toxicities compared with pemetrexed alone., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This phase II study examined the efficacy of mapatumumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB or stage IV advanced primary NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive up to 6 courses of standard-dose paclitaxel and carboplatin or a combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and mapatumumab (10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg). Primary efficacy end points were overall response rate and median progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy end points included disease control rate, overall survival (OS), time to response, and duration of response. Exploratory studies included evaluation of historical biopsy materials for TRAIL-R1 expression by immunohistochemical analysis and serum levels of M30, a marker of apoptosis, before and after the first 2 doses of mapatumumab. Safety parameters, including adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, and immunogenicity, were assessed., Results: The majority of patients had stage IV disease (79%) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 (58%); baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. No improvements in response or disease control rates, PFS, or OS were gained from the addition of mapatumumab. Adverse events in the mapatumumab arms were generally consistent with toxicities seen in the carboplatin and paclitaxel control arm. Levels of M30 were highly variable, and consistent patterns were not seen across treatment arms., Conclusion: This study showed no clinical benefit from adding mapatumumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel in unselected patients with NSCLC. The combination was generally well tolerated. The possibility of subgroups sensitive to mapatumumab is discussed., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients from 211 centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2-21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00805194., Findings: Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8-11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months [95% CI 2·9-3·9] vs 2·7 months [2·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·68-0·92], p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8-36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months [95% CI 8·5-12·6] vs 7·9 months [6·7-9·1]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·92], p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months [95% CI 10·6-15·1] vs 10·3 months [95% CI 8·6-12·2]; HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·70-0·99], p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months [95% CI 8·8-11·2] vs 9·1 months [8·4-10·4]; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83-1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 [6·6%] of 652 vs 17 [2·6%] of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 [7·8%] vs six [0·9%]), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 [3·4%] vs three [0·5%]). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three)., Interpretation: Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma., Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Introduction: Tigatuzumab, a humanized monoclonal DR5 agonist antibody induces apoptosis in human cancer cell lines. The objective of this study was to investigate the antitumor effects of tigatuzumab combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic/unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed NSCLC stage IIIB/IV disease by RECIST (version 1.0) and ECOG-PS 0-1 were enrolled at 15 European sites. Patients received tigatuzumab or placebo intravenously with carboplatin/paclitaxel every 3 weeks (1 cycle) for up to 6 cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate and safety., Results: 97 patients were analyzed for efficacy (49 tigatuzumab; 48 placebo). Median PFS (95% CI) was 5.4 months (3.3, 6.6) for tigatuzumab compared with 4.3 months (4.1, 5.8) for placebo. Median OS (95% CI) was 8.4 months (6.9, 16.3) for tigatuzumab versus 9.0 months (7.6, 14.5) for placebo. 12 patients (24.5%) in the tigatuzumab arm and 11 patients (22.9%) in the placebo arm had partial response. No patient had complete response. In a prospectively-defined Fc gamma receptor genotype subset (n=25), there was a non-significant trend toward increased PFS with tigatuzumab versus placebo (HR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.16, 1.35) but no difference in OS. Tigatuzumab was well tolerated. However, grade 3/4 neutropenia was reported in 10 patients (20.4%) receiving tigatuzumab compared with 4 patients (8.3%) receiving placebo., Conclusions: Tigatuzumab was well tolerated but did not improve efficacy of carboplatin/paclitaxel in systemic therapy-naïve, unselected advanced NSCLC patients., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%-1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21)., Conclusion: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.

Introduction: Sagopilone is the first fully synthetic epothilone in clinical development and has proven preclinical activity in tumor models. This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II study examined the efficacy and safety of three regimens with two doses and two infusion durations of second-line sagopilone in pretreated patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer., Methods: Eligibility criteria included: at least one measurable lesion by modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; World Health Organization performance status of 0 or 1; and failure of previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive: 16 mg/m2 sagopilone over 3 h (treatment arm A); 22 mg/m(2) sagopilone over 0.5 h (treatment arm B); or 22 mg/m2 sagopilone over 3h (treatment arm C). Treatment duration was two to six courses every 3 weeks; more than six treatment courses were permitted if there was sustained clinical benefit. The primary efficacy endpoint was best overall response after six courses; at least five confirmed responders per arm indicated a successful outcome., Results: In total, 128 patients (44, arm A; 41, arm B; 43, arm C) were randomized; 127 received at least one infusion of sagopilone. Baseline demographic data were similar across all arms. Eight patients across all arms had a confirmed partial response; the primary endpoint was not achieved. The most frequently reported adverse event (AE) was peripheral sensory neuropathy (75%). Most hematologic AEs were grade 1 or 2., Conclusion: As fewer than five patients per arm responded after six treatment courses, the primary endpoint was not met. Sagopilone was only moderately tolerated. Most AEs, including peripheral neuropathy, were grade 1 or 2; hematologic toxicities were rare., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This multicenter, open-label, phase II study was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of cilengitide (EMD 121974), a selective inhibitor of the cell-surface integrins αVβ3 and αVβ5, with that of docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients (n = 140) with advanced NSCLC who had failed first-line chemotherapy were randomized to cilengitide 240, 400, or 600 mg/m(2) twice weekly, or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for eight cycles. Non-progressing patients could continue cilengitide for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). No statistical tests were performed since the study was exploratory in nature and the number of patients enrolled was relatively small., Results: Median PFS was 54, 63, 63, and 67 days for cilengitide 240, 400, and 600 mg/m(2), and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), respectively. One-year survival rates were 13 %, 13 %, 29 %, and 27 %, respectively. The response rate (partial response only) with docetaxel was 15 %. No responses were reported in any cilengitide arm. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events in the docetaxel group were leukopenia and neutropenia (experienced by 13 % of patients). Hematologic toxicity of this severity did not occur in cilengitide-treated patients., Conclusion: With the highest dose of cilengitide (600 mg/m(2)), median PFS and 1-year survival were similar to those in patients treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and there were fewer grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events.

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a key mediator of angiogenesis. Solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), are dependent on angiogenesis for growth and metastasis. Anti-VEGF therapy has demonstrated clinical benefits in the first-line treatment of NSCLC. Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are a common occurrence among patients with lung cancer and confer significant morbidity and mortality. The risk of CNS hemorrhage in NSCLC patients receiving anti-VEGF therapy is still relatively unexplored because patients with CNS metastases have generally been excluded from trials of anti-VEGF therapy due to a perceived increased risk of cerebral hemorrhage. Recently, large prospective, randomized trials, open-label studies and observational cohort studies in NSCLC have provided data on the incidence of CNS hemorrhage in large patient populations, reflective of community practice., Methods: We conducted a literature review for the available data on the incidence of CNS hemorrhage in NSCLC patients with brain metastases receiving anti-VEGF therapy., Results: There is no significantly increased risk of CNS hemorrhage in patients with NSCLC and emerging (previously untreated) or pretreated CNS metastases receiving anti-VEGF therapy., Conclusions: We conclude that clinical trial data indicate that anti-VEGF therapy can be considered for NSCLC patients with emerging or pretreated CNS metastases., (Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

We present the rationale and design for MARQUEE, a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of ARQ 197 plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in previously treated subjects with locally advanced or metastatic, nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The design of MARQUEE is based on preclinical data, the current understanding of the role of cellular N-methyl-N'-nitroso-guanidine human osteosarcoma (MNNG HOS) transforming gene (MET) in NSCLC, and clinical data from a randomized phase II study. The available evidence suggests that dual inhibition of MET and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) may overcome resistance to EGFR inhibitors. In the phase II study, the combination of tivantinib plus erlotinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with placebo plus erlotinib in the subset of patients with nonsquamous histology, a population enriched for MET overexpression. The primary endpoint in MARQUEE is OS. Secondary and exploratory objectives include determination of PFS, OS in molecular subgroups (defined by EGFR and KRAS mutation status, amplification or overexpression of MET, and serum hepatocyte growth factor), and safety. All patients will be tested for biomarkers, and the results will provide a wealth of information on the role of tivantinib in treating nonsquamous NSCLC., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage IIIB to IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Between February 2007 and March 2009, 904 patients were randomly assigned to daily sorafenib (400 mg twice a day) or matching placebo plus gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) for up to six 21-day cycles. Because of safety findings from the Evaluation of Sorafenib, Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Efficacy in NSCLC (ESCAPE) trial, patients with squamous cell histology were withdrawn from the trial in February 2008 and excluded from analysis. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP)., Results: The primary analysis population consisted of 772 patients (sorafenib, 385; placebo, 387); the two groups had similar demographic and baseline characteristics. Median OS was similar in the sorafenib and placebo groups (12.4 v 12.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; P = .401). By investigator assessment, sorafenib improved median PFS (6.0 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.83; P = .008) and TTP (6.1 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.73; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 drug-related adverse events more than two-fold higher in the sorafenib group included hand-foot skin reaction (8.6% v 0.3%), fatigue (7.3% v 3.6%), rash (5.7% v 0.5%), and hypertension (4.2% v 1.8%). No unexpected toxicities were observed., Conclusion: This study did not meet its primary end point of improved OS when sorafenib was added to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Identification of predictive biomarkers is warranted in future trials of sorafenib.

TaRceva LUng cancer Survival Treatment (TRUST) was an open-label, phase IV study of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients failing or unsuitable for chemotherapy or radiotherapy received erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression. We examined a subpopulation of elderly patients (≥70 years) receiving first-line erlotinib (n=485) in TRUST. In this subpopulation, disease control rate (n=356 with best response data available) was 79% (vs. 69% for the overall TRUST population; p<0.0001); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.57 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.68-5.22]; median overall survival (OS) was 7.29 months (95% CI, 6.27-8.67); and one-year survival, was 36.6%. PFS and OS were significantly longer in patients developing rash, compared to those without, and in those with good performance status (PS; 0/1), compared to poor PS (≥2). Eighty-seven subpopulation patients (18%) had an erlotinib-related AE; other than the protocol-defined frequent adverse events (AEs); 4% had a grade ≥3 erlotinib-related AE, 7% had an erlotinib-related serious AE. In the subpopulation, dose reductions were required in 27%, most (97%) were reductions to 100 mg/day; treatment was discontinued in 10%, and one death was associated with treatment-related toxicity (<1%). Erlotinib was effective and well-tolerated and may be considered for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC who are unsuitable for standard first-line chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical results of a randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed-carboplatin (PC) with etoposide-carboplatin (EC) in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) resulted in trial closure for futility; biomarker analyses using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are described herein., Patients and Methods: Thymidylate synthase (TS), excision repair cross complementing-1 (ERCC1), glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT), and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) were investigated using IHC (n=395). SNPs were genotyped for TS, FPGS, γ-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), folate receptor-α FR-α, and solute carrier 19A1 (SLC19A1; n=611)., Results: None of the IHC biomarkers (folate pathway or ERCC1) were found to be predictive or prognostic in this setting. rs2838952 (adjacent to SLC19A1) had significant treatment-independent association with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.590, P=0.01). Nine GGH-associated SNPs interacted with rs3788205 (SLC19A1) for OS on the PC arm. rs12379987 (FPGS) interacted with treatment for OS (interaction P=0.036)., Conclusion: Potential ERCC1 and folate pathway IHC biomarkers failed to predict outcome in either study arm in ED-SCLC. SNPs in regions including FPGS and SLC19A1 and interacting SNPs in GGH and SLC19A1 were associated with differences in OS; however, none of these SNPs predicted for greater survival with PC over EC.

Purpose: Sunitinib plus erlotinib may enhance antitumor activity compared with either agent alone in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on the importance of the signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. This phase III trial investigated overall survival (OS) for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients previously treated with one to two chemotherapy regimens (including one platinum-based regimen) for recurrent NSCLC, and for whom erlotinib was indicated, were randomly assigned (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus erlotinib 150 mg/d or to placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg/d, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, smoking history, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety., Results: In all, 960 patients were randomly assigned, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Median OS was 9.0 months for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus 8.5 months for erlotinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388). Median PFS was 3.6 months versus 2.0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10.6% versus 6.9% (two-sided stratified log-rank P = .0471), respectively. Treatment-related toxicities of grade 3 or higher, including rash/dermatitis, diarrhea, and asthenia/fatigue were more frequent in the sunitinib plus erlotinib arm., Conclusion: In patients with refractory NSCLC, sunitinib plus erlotinib did not improve OS compared with erlotinib alone, but the combination was associated with a statistically significantly longer PFS and greater ORR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities was greater with combination therapy.

Introduction: Tasisulam sodium (hereafter referred to as tasisulam) is a novel anticancer compound that induces apoptosis and exhibits antiangiogenesis activity in a broad range of cancer models, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Tasisulam was administered as a 2-hour infusion every 21 days as third-line treatment in patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC., Results: Thirty-two patients received a Cmax target dose of 420 µg/ml. Median time to progression was 3.12 months, median progression-free survival was 2.69 months, and median overall survival was 8.48 months. There were no objective responses; 43.8% of patients achieved stable disease. A high rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity in the first 30 patients led to exploration of a lower Cmax target dose of 380 µg/ml. The rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity (thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia) at the 380-µg/ml dose (n = 20) was 20% versus 34% at the 420-µg/ml dose., Conclusions: Tasisulam has only modest activity as a third-line treatment of patients with unresectable/metastatic NSCLC. The high rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity observed with this highly albumin- bound compound in this patient population provided challenges for fixed Cmax-based dosing. Alternative dosing methods, including varying the Cmax target dose by predose albumin, are under investigation in other studies.

Objectives: Enzastaurin is a serine/threonine kinase inhibitor that targets protein kinase C and AKT pathways. Enzastaurin and pemetrexed demonstrated synergy in preclinical studies. This trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of first-line enzastaurin plus cisplatin-pemetrexed in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: A safety lead-in phase (n = 13) of enzastaurin 125 or 250 mg twice daily was added to cisplatin-pemetrexed. A subsequent randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study (n = 22) of the combination was conducted to evaluate efficacy., Results: The combination was well tolerated and showed activity, with 7 (53.8%, 95% CI 26.7-80.9) confirmed partial responses and 2 stable diseases in 13 treated patients in the lead-in phase. However, the study was terminated early based on interim results from two phase II NSCLC studies of enzastaurin plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, which indicated no efficacy improvement., Conclusions: Enzastaurin and cisplatin-pemetrexed is tolerable with preliminary activity in patients with advanced NSCLC, but because of a lack of efficacy improvement in other phase II NSCLC studies, the study was terminated early., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Findings from the phase 3 First-Line ErbituX in lung cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·871, 95% CI 0·762-0·996; p=0·044) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To define patients benefiting most from cetuximab, we studied the association of tumour EGFR expression level with clinical outcome in FLEX study patients., Methods: We used prospectively collected tumour EGFR expression data to generate an immunohistochemistry score for FLEX study patients on a continuous scale of 0-300. We used response data to select an outcome-based discriminatory threshold immunohistochemistry score for EGFR expression of 200. Treatment outcome was analysed in patients with low (immunohistochemistry score <200) and high (≥200) tumour EGFR expression. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. We analysed patients from the FLEX intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798., Findings: Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 1121 of 1125 (99·6%) patients from the FLEX study ITT population. High EGFR expression was scored for 345 (31%) evaluable patients and low for 776 (69%) patients. For patients in the high EGFR expression group, overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 12·0 months [95% CI 10·2-15·2] vs 9·6 months [7·6-10·6]; HR 0·73, 0·58-0·93; p=0·011), with no meaningful increase in side-effects. We recorded no corresponding survival benefit for patients in the low EGFR expression group (median 9·8 months [8·9-12·2] vs 10·3 months [9·2-11·5]; HR 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·88). A treatment interaction test assessing the difference in the HRs for overall survival between the EGFR expression groups suggested a predictive value for EGFR expression (p=0·044)., Interpretation: High EGFR expression is a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Assessment of EGFR expression could offer a personalised treatment approach in this setting., Funding: Merck KGaA., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: c-MET (MET) receptor activation is associated with poor prognosis and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This global, randomized phase II trial examined erlotinib plus tivantinib (ARQ 197; ArQule, Woburn, MA), a novel MET inhibitor., Methods: Previously treated patients with EGFR TKI-naive advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) or erlotinib plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). At the time of progression, cross-over from EP to erlotinib plus tivantinib (ET) was permitted. Archival tumor tissue specimens were required., Results: One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to ET (n = 84) and to EP (n = 83). Median PFS was 3.8 months for ET and 2.3 months for EP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.16; P = .24). Exploratory analysis revealed that the small cohort with KRAS mutations achieved a PFS HR of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.70; interaction P = .006). Objective responses were seen in 10% of patients on ET, 7% of patients on EP, and in two patients who crossed over from EP to ET, including one with EGFR mutation and MET gene copy number greater than 5. There were no significant differences in adverse events between study arms., Conclusion: The combination of the MET inhibitor tivantinib and erlotinib is well-tolerated. Although the study did not meet its primary end point, evidence of activity was demonstrated, especially among patients with KRAS mutations. Additional study of tivantinib and erlotinib in patients with NSCLC is planned.

Background: Findings from the phase 3 FLEX study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival, compared with cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in the first-line treatment of EGFR-expressing, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether candidate biomarkers were predictive for the efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in this setting., Methods: Genomic DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour tissue of patients enrolled in the FLEX study was screened for KRAS codon 12 and 13 and EGFR kinase domain mutations with PCR-based assays. In FFPE tissue sections, EGFR copy number was assessed by dual-colour fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry. Treatment outcome was investigated according to biomarker status in all available samples from patients in the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. The FLEX study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798., Findings: KRAS mutations were detected in 75 of 395 (19%) tumours and activating EGFR mutations in 64 of 436 (15%). EGFR copy number was scored as increased in 102 of 279 (37%) tumours and PTEN expression as negative in 107 of 303 (35%). Comparisons of treatment outcome between the two groups (chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs chemotherapy alone) according to biomarker status provided no indication that these biomarkers were of predictive value. Activating EGFR mutations were identified as indicators of good prognosis, with patients in both treatment groups whose tumours carried such mutations having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 17·5 months [95% CI 11·7-23·4] vs 8·5 months [7·1-10·8], hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [0·32-0·84], p=0·0063; chemotherapy alone: 23·8 months [15·2-not reached] vs 10·0 months [8·7-11·0], HR 0·35 [0·21-0·59], p<0·0001). Expression of PTEN seemed to be a potential indicator of good prognosis, with patients whose tumours expressed PTEN having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not, although this finding was not significant (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 11·4 months [8·6-13·6] vs 6·8 months [5·9-12·7], HR 0·80 [0·55-1·16], p=0·24; chemotherapy alone: 11·0 months [9·2-12·6] vs 9·3 months [7·6-11·9], HR 0·77 [0·54-1·10], p=0·16)., Interpretation: The efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC seems to be independent of each of the biomarkers assessed., Funding: Merck KGaA., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: To assess the efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of BIBF 1120 in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic relapsed NSCLC in whom first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy failed were randomly allocated to daily 250 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. or 150 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response (RECIST). Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) were reported., Results: Seventy-three patients received BIBF 1120. Median PFS was 6.9 weeks, with no significant difference between treatment arms. Median overall survival (OS) was 21.9 weeks. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-1 patients (n = 56) had a median PFS of 11.6 weeks and a median OS of 37.7 weeks. Tumour stabilisation was achieved in 46% of patients (ECOG 0-1 patients: 59%), with one confirmed partial response (250 mg b.i.d.). Most commonly reported drug-related AEs were nausea (57.5%), diarrhoea (47.9%), vomiting (42.5%), anorexia (28.8%), abdominal pain (13.7%) and reversible alanine transaminase (13.7%) and aspartate aminotransferase elevations (9.6%). BIBF 1120 displayed dose-linear pharmacokinetic characteristics., Conclusion: Continuous treatment with BIBF 1120 was well tolerated, with no difference in efficacy between treatment arms. PFS and objective response with single-agent treatment in advanced disease warrants further exploration.

Background: The randomised phase 3 First-Line Erbitux in Lung Cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main cetuximab-related side-effect was acne-like rash. Here, we assessed the association of this acne-like rash with clinical benefit., Methods: We did a subgroup analysis of patients in the FLEX study, which enrolled patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumours expressed epidermal growth factor receptor. Our landmark analysis assessed if the development of acne-like rash in the first 21 days of treatment (first-cycle rash) was associated with clinical outcome, on the basis of patients in the intention-to-treat population alive on day 21. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798., Findings: 518 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group-290 of whom had first-cycle rash-and 540 patients in the chemotherapy alone group were alive on day 21. Patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group with first-cycle rash had significantly prolonged overall survival compared with patients in the same treatment group without first-cycle rash (median 15·0 months [95% CI 12·8-16·4] vs 8·8 months [7·6-11·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·631 [0·515-0·774]; p<0·0001). Corresponding significant associations were also noted for progression-free survival (median 5·4 months [5·2-5·7] vs 4·3 months [4·1-5·3]; HR 0·741 [0·607-0·905]; p=0·0031) and response (rate 44·8% [39·0-50·8] vs 32·0% [26·0-38·5]; odds ratio 1·703 [1·186-2·448]; p=0·0039). Overall survival for patients without first-cycle rash was similar to that of patients that received chemotherapy alone (median 8·8 months [7·6-11·1] vs 10·3 months [9·6-11·3]; HR 1·085 [0·910-1·293]; p=0·36). The significant overall survival benefit for patients with first-cycle rash versus without was seen in all histology subgroups: adenocarcinoma (median 16·9 months, [14·1-20·6] vs 9·3 months [7·7-13·2]; HR 0·614 [0·453-0·832]; p=0·0015), squamous-cell carcinoma (median 13·2 months [10·6-16·0] vs 8·1 months [6·7-12·6]; HR 0·659 [0·472-0·921]; p=0·014), and carcinomas of other histology (median 12·6 months [9·2-16·4] vs 6·9 months [5·2-11·0]; HR 0·616 [0·392-0·966]; p=0·033)., Interpretation: First-cycle rash was associated with a better outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who received cisplatin and vinorelbine plus cetuximab as a first-line treatment. First-cycle rash might be a surrogate clinical marker that could be used to tailor cetuximab treatment for advanced NSCLC to those patients who would be most likely to derive a significant benefit., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This randomized phase II study investigated pemetrexed in combination with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody matuzumab compared with pemetrexed alone as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m every 3 weeks either alone (n = 50) or in combination with matuzumab at either 800 mg weekly (n = 51) or 1600 mg every 3 weeks (n = 47). The primary end point was objective response, as assessed by an independent review committee., Results: Tumor EGFR expression was detected in 87% of randomized patients. The objective response rate for the pooled matuzumab-treated arms was 11% compared with 5% for pemetrexed alone (p = 0.332). Apart from one patient in the pemetrexed alone group, all responses occurred in patients whose tumors expressed EGFR. The objective response rate for patients receiving weekly matuzumab was 16% compared with 2% for those receiving matuzumab every 3 weeks. There was also a trend for improved overall survival in patients receiving matuzumab weekly versus every 3 weeks (12.4 months versus 5.9 months, respectively, versus 7.9 months for pemetrexed alone). The combination of pemetrexed and matuzumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, with the most common grade 3/4 adverse event being neutropenia., Conclusion: Although the analysis on the pooled matuzumab-treated arms did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in objective response for the addition of matuzumab to pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed alone, the trends for improvement in objective response and overall survival for pemetrexed plus weekly matuzumab compared with pemetrexed alone warrant confirmation in additional clinical trials.

Introduction: A prespecified analysis of the large, randomized, phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer showed significant improvement in survival for nonsquamous patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin. Selected grade 3/4 toxicities and resource utilization favored pemetrexed in the overall population, but detailed safety results by histology have not been reported., Methods: Treated patients were included in this analysis of safety by histology. At each cycle, adverse events were assessed, and concomitant medications, transfusions, and hospitalizations were recorded. Measures were summarized by histology and compared between arms with Fisher's exact test., Results: When analyzed by squamous and nonsquamous histology, safety and resource utilization for each treatment arm paralleled those of the overall population. Selected toxicities did not vary by histology. Concomitant medication use and hospitalizations were also very similar to the patterns observed in the overall population., Conclusions: Although previous efficacy analyses showed a significant pemetrexed treatment advantage for nonsquamous patients, results of this analysis indicate that safety and resource utilization do not vary by histology and are consistent with the overall population. The safety and resource utilization of patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin are predictable, reproducible, and consistent with the established favorable safety profile of pemetrexed, regardless of histology.

Background: Bevacizumab, the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, provides clinical benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis from the phase III AVAiL trial., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 1043) received cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) for up to six cycles plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (n = 345), bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 347) every 3 weeks until progression. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); OS was a secondary end point., Results: Significant PFS prolongation with bevacizumab compared with placebo was maintained with longer follow-up {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.75 (0.64-0.87), P = 0.0003 and 0.85 (0.73-1.00), P = 0.0456} for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median OS was >13 months in all treatment groups; nevertheless, OS was not significantly increased with bevacizumab [HR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.78-1.11), P = 0.420 and 1.03 (0.86-1.23), P = 0.761] for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively, versus placebo. Most patients ( approximately 62%) received multiple lines of poststudy treatment. Updated safety results are consistent with those previously reported., Conclusions: Final analysis of AVAiL confirms the efficacy of bevacizumab when combined with cisplatin-gemcitabine. The PFS benefit did not translate into a significant OS benefit, possibly due to high use of efficacious second-line therapies.