Search

Objectives: The JAVELIN Lung 200 phase 3 trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival (OS) with avelumab vs docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC. We report post hoc analyses assessing the effects of subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment on OS., Material and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC progressed following platinum-doublet therapy were randomized to receive avelumab or docetaxel. OS was analyzed in the PD-L1+ population (≥1% of tumor cells) and full analysis set (PD-L1+ or PD-L1-). Effects of subsequent ICI (after permanent discontinuation of study treatment) on OS were analyzed using a preplanned naive sensitivity analysis and post hoc inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) analysis. Subgroups with or without subsequent ICI treatment were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: In the avelumab and docetaxel arms, a subsequent ICI was received by 16/396 (4.0 %) and 104/396 (26.3 %) after a median of 10.5 months (range, 3.9-20.4) and 5.7 months (range, 0.1-24.4), respectively. Some subgroups showed trends for higher subsequent ICI treatment, including patients with non-squamous NSCLC (avelumab arm, 4.3 % vs docetaxel arm, 32.1 %) or with a baseline ECOG performance status of 0 (6.3 % vs 31.3 %); those enrolled in the early recruitment wave (11.6 % vs 54.3 %), or enrolled in the US/Western Europe (2.8 % vs 45.5 %) or Asia (11.0 % vs 35.4 %); and non-white patients (10.1 % vs 35.0 %). The hazard ratio for OS with avelumab vs docetaxel was lower in the IPCW analysis than in the naive sensitivity analysis (PD-L1+ population: 0.80 [95 % CI, 0.62-1.04] vs 0.86 [95 % CI, 0.68-1.09], respectively)., Conclusion: In the JAVELIN Lung 200 trial, avelumab showed clinical activity as second-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. Post hoc analyses suggest that the primary OS analysis may have been confounded by subsequent ICI use in the docetaxel arm. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02395172., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens., Patients and Methods: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted., Results: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively)., Conclusion: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.