Search

PURPOSE Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia ( P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia ( P = .002); and alopecia ( P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea ( P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

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/m2 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.

Background: High mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) is known for its significant elevation in a multitude of tumors and benign diseases. In this study, we investigated the relevance of soluble HMGB1 for the prediction and monitoring of therapy response as well as the estimation of prognosis in advanced lung cancer. Materials and Methods: In a retrospective study, HMGB1 levels were assessed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the sera of 96 patients with advanced lung cancer (79 non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), 14 small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), 3 Mesothelioma) prior to cycles 1, 2, and 3 of chemotherapy and correlated with radiological therapy response after 2 and 4 cycles as well as with overall survival. In addition, HMGB1 was compared with established tumor markers cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and neuron specific enolase (NSE). Results: While pretherapeutic HMGB1 levels were not predictive or prognostically relevant in NSCLC patients, HMGB1 values prior to cycles 2 and 3 as well as kinetics from cycle 1 to 2 discriminated significantly between patients with good (remission and stable disease) and poor response (progression). Performance of HMGB1 in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of NSCLC patients, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.690 at cycle 2 and 0.794 at cycle 3 as well as sensitivities of 34.4% and 37.5%, respectively, for progression at 90% specificity, was comparable with the best tumor-associated antigen CYFRA 21-1 (AUCs 0.719 and 0.799, sensitivities of 37.5% and 41.7%, respectively). Furthermore, high concentrations of HMGB1 at cycles 2 and 3 were associated with shorter overall survival in NSCLC patients. Conclusion: Soluble HMGB1 is a promising biomarker for prediction of therapy response and prognosis in advanced NSCLC patients.

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.

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.

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.

Sylvia Guetz,1,* Amanda Tufman,2,* Joachim von Pawel,3 Achim Rittmeyer,4 Astrid Borgmeier,2 Pierre Ferré,5 Birgit Edlich,6 Rudolf Maria Huber2 1Ev. Diakonissenkrankenhaus Leipzig, Leipzig, 2University Hospital Munich and Thoracic Oncology Centre Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (DZL CPC-M), Munich, 3Asklepios Fachkliniken Muenchen-Gauting, Gauting, 4Lungenfachklinik Immenhausen, Immenhausen, Germany; 5Pierre Fabre Pharmaceuticals, Oncology Research and Development Center, Toulouse, France; 6Pierre Fabre Pharma GmbH, Freiburg, Germany *These authors contributed equally to this work Micro-abstract: In a Phase I dose-finding study of metronomic daily oral vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, a recommended dose was established for this therapeutic approach. In addition, this trial revealed promising efficacy data and an acceptable tolerability profile. The observed vinorelbine blood concentrations suggest continuous anti-angiogenic coverage. Introduction: We present a Phase I dose-finding study investigating metronomic daily oral vinorelbine (Navelbine® Oral, NVBo) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients with stage III/IV NSCLC received daily NVBo at fixed dose levels of 20–50mg/d for 21days of each 4-week cycle. Primary end point was the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and tolerability. Results: Twenty-seven patients with advanced NSCLC were enrolled. Most of them were extensively pretreated. Daily NVBo was well tolerated up to 30mg/d. At 40mg/d, two of five patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three of six patients had DLTs at the 50mg/d level. The recommended dose was established at 30mg/d in cycle 1, with escalation to 40mg/d in cycle 2, if tolerated. Pharmacokinetic analyses showed continuous blood exposure over 21days and only marginal accumulation. The tolerability profile was acceptable (all dose levels – all grades: decreased appetite 33%, diarrhea 33%, leukopenia 33%, nausea 30%, vomiting 26%; ≥grade 3: leukopenia 30%, lymphopenia 19%, neutropenia 19%, febrile neutropenia 15%). Disease control rate, OS and TTP signaled a treatment effect. Conclusion: Daily metronomic NVBo therapy in extensively pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC is feasible and safe at the recommended dose of 30mg/d. Escalation to 40mg/d in the second cycle is possible. The blood concentrations of vinorelbine after daily metronomic dosing reached lower peaks than intravenous or oral conventional dosing. Blood concentrations were consistent with anti-angiogenic or immune modulating pharmacologic properties of vinorelbine. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this novel approach in specific patient populations. Keywords: NSCLC, dose escalation, lung carcinoma, vinca-alkaloid, anti-angiogenic treatment, cytotoxic therapy, vinorelbine capsules

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.

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.

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/m2 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.

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. ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT02134015., Highlights • High heregulin levels predict benefit from patritumab treatment in patients with NSCLC. • A prospective–retrospective approach provisionally validated a predictive biomarker. • Post hoc analyses can be used to test underlying assumptions in biomarker validation. • The median may be a reasonable initial cutoff for a unimodal continuous biomarker.

Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-EGFR family tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Findings from a phase 2 study in non-small cell lung cancer showed favourable efficacy for dacomitinib compared with erlotinib. We aimed to compare dacomitinib with erlotinib in a phase 3 study.In a randomised, multicentre, double-blind phase 3 trial in 134 centres in 23 countries, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, progression after one or two previous regimens of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and presence of measurable disease. We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to dacomitinib (45 mg/day) or erlotinib (150 mg/day) with matching placebo. Treatment allocation was masked to the investigator, patient, and study funder. Randomisation was stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), ethnic origin (Asian vs non-Asian and Indian sub-continent), performance status (0-1 vs 2), and smoking status (never-smoker vs ever-smoker). The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival per independent review for all randomly assigned patients, and for all randomly assigned patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. The study has completed accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01360554.Between June 22, 2011, and March 12, 2013, we enrolled 878 patients and randomly assigned 439 to dacomitinib (256 KRAS wild type) and 439 (263 KRAS wild type) to erlotinib. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·9-2·8) in both the dacomitinib group and the erlotinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·941, 95% CI 0·802-1·104, one-sided log-rank p=0·229). For patients with wild-type KRAS, median progression-free survival was 2·6 months for dacomitinib (95% CI 1·9-2·9) and erlotinib (95% CI 1·9-3·0; stratified HR 1·022, 95% CI 0·834-1·253, one-sided p=0·587). In patients who received at least one dose of study drug, the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (47 [11%] patients in the dacomitinib group vs ten [2%] patients in the erlotinib group), rash (29 [7%] vs 12 [3%]), and stomatitis (15 [3%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 52 (12%) patients receiving dacomitinib and 40 (9%) patients receiving erlotinib.Irreversible EGFR inhibition with dacomitinib was not superior to erlotinib in an unselected patient population with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer or in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Further study of irreversible EGFR inhibitors should be restricted to patients with activating EGFR mutations.Pfizer.

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)

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.

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 B 12 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.

Background Targeting the epidermal-growth-factor-receptor (EGFR) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an established treatment option with less toxicity compared to conventional chemotherapy. This study was undertaken to determine whether Erlotinib is non-inferior compared to chemotherapy as a first-line therapy in unselected elderly patients. Materials and methods Patients ≥70 years with untreated, metastatic NSCLC were randomized to Erlotinib (E), 150mg/day or Carboplatin (AUC5) plus Vinorelbine (25mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8) every three weeks (CV). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). After progression, crossover was strongly recommended. Secondary endpoints were duration of response, 1-year survival, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), quality of life (FACT-L), assessment of comorbidities by simplified comorbidity score (SCS) and Charlsons' comorbidity score, safety and assessment of molecular markers. Results Between June 2006 and August 2008 284 pts were randomized to E (144) and CV (140). PFS was significantly inferior with E (median PFS 2.4 versus 4.6 months [HR 1.6, 75% CI 1.22–2.09, p: 0.0005]) as well as RR (7.8% v 28.3%, p: 0.0001). No significant difference in OS appeared (median E: 7.3 months versus CV: 8.4 months, HR: 1.24 [75% CI 0.9–1.71]). In never smokers PFS (median PFS: 3.7 v 4.3 m, E v CV, HR 0.72, 75% CI 0.35–1.48) and OS (median: 16.5 versus 17 months, HR 0.99 [75% CI 0.38–2.57]) were comparable. More skin toxicity and diarrhea was seen with E compared to more myelotoxicity, neurotoxicity and constipation with CV. Less severe adverse events were observed with E (81 v 102, E v CV). Conclusion CV had an increased efficacy compared with E in an unselected population of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

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: 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 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-naive 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-naive, unselected advanced NSCLC patients. Clinical trials identifier: NCT00991796.

The N-methyl-N'-nitroso-guanidine human osteosarcoma transforming gene (MET) receptor tyrosine kinase and its ligand hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) control cellular signaling cascades that direct cell growth, proliferation, survival, and motility. Aberrant MET/HGF activation has been observed in many tumor types, can occur by multiple mechanisms, and promotes cellular proliferation and metastasis via growth factor receptors and other oncogenic receptor pathways. Thus, MET/HGF inhibition has emerged as targeted anticancer therapies. Preclinically, neoplastic and metastatic phenotypes of several tumor cells, including non-small cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and gastric cancer, were abrogated by MET inhibition. Ongoing clinical development with tivantinib, cabozantinib, onartuzumab, crizotinib, rilotumumab, and ficlatuzumab has shown encouraging results. These trials have established a key role for MET in a variety of tumor types. Evidence is emerging for identification of aberrant MET activity biomarkers and selection of patient subpopulations that may benefit from targeted MET and HGF inhibitor treatment.

8051 Background: Variability of chemotherapy exposure may cause severe toxicity or lack of efficacy. Paclitaxel (PTX) exposure (time above a plasma concentration of 0.05mM, Tc > 0.05) has been show...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.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.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], p0·0001). 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).The efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC seems to be independent of each of the biomarkers assessed.Merck KGaA.

Objective To investigate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of two dosing schedules of BI 2536, a novel polo-like kinase-1 inhibitor, in patients with relapsed stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. Methods Ninety-five patients were randomized to intravenous BI 2536 on day 1 (200 mg) or days 1 to 3 (50 or 60 mg) of a 21-day treatment course. BI 2536 doses were escalated beyond course 2 if well tolerated. The primary objective was response, and the secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Primary statistical aim was to demonstrate the difference in objective response rate to historical placebo for both treatment groups. Results Four patients (4.2%) had a partial response; two were confirmed by independent review. Median PFS was 8.3 weeks (58 days 95% confidence interval [CI]: 48–85) and 7 weeks (49 days 95% CI: 46–70) assessed by investigator and independent review, respectively. Median OS was 28.7 weeks (201 days 95% CI: 180–305). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two treatment schedules regarding clinical benefit, PFS, or OS. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 37% of patients; common nonhematologic adverse events were fatigue (31%) and nausea (27%). Two deaths (pulmonary hemorrhage and sepsis) were considered drug related. There was a trend in favor of the days 1 to 3 dosing schedule in quality of life. BI 2536 displayed moderate interpatient variability. Conclusions BI 2536 monotherapy has modest efficacy and favorable safety in relapsed non-small cell lung cancer. The findings support the further development of polo-like kinase-1 inhibitors within this indication.

109Background: This ongoing, double-blind, randomized, global clinical trial (NCT02364999) evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-06439535 vs. reference bevacizumab sourced from t...

Introduction We examined the efficacy of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIA/B or IV) non-small cell lung cancer in a double-blinded, randomized, phase II study. Methods Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles (day 8 in cycle 1) plus oral enzastaurin (250 mg two times per day; combination arm) or placebo (pemetrexed arm). Both arms received supplementation with vitamin B 12 , folic acid, and dexamethasone. An interim analysis was conducted to determine whether efficacy would warrant a phase III study. Results The interim analysis showed no evidence of improved progression-free survival with enzastaurin. At final analysis (N = 160, 80 in each arm), baseline characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (3.0 months, p = 0.544) or overall survival (9.6 months in combination arm and 7.4 months in pemetrexed arm, p = 0.171). Drug-related serious adverse events included cerebrovascular accident, palpitations, and renal failure (n = 1, each) in combination arm and neutropenic sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and panniculitis (n = 1, each) in pemetrexed arm. Nonhematologic drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were higher with the combination, specifically leukopenia (6.3% versus 0%), neutropenia (15.2% versus 5.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.9% versus 1.3%). Of the 26 deaths reported on-study or within 30 days of discontinuation (10 in combination arm and 16 in pemetrexed arm), none were drug related. Conclusion The combination regimen of enzastaurin and pemetrexed is well tolerated but does not improve efficacy over pemetrexed and placebo as second-line treatment of unselected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Lessons LearnedThe 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.BackgroundEpidermal 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).MethodsPatients (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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThere was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line NS-NSCLC.

This single-arm phase II study evaluated the tumor-vascular disrupting agent ASA404 (vadimezan, 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid/DMXAA) 1800mg/m(2) plus standard therapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This ASA404 dose is 50% higher than that used in previous phase II studies. Thirty patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV NSCLC previously untreated with chemotherapy received carboplatin AUC 6mg/mlmin plus paclitaxel 175mg/m(2) plus ASA404 1800mg/m(2) every 21 days for up to six cycles. The addition of ASA404 1800mg/m(2) to standard therapy produced little change in the systemic exposure of either total or free carboplatin or paclitaxel, and was generally well-tolerated, with no cardiac serious adverse events or clinically relevant ophthalmic abnormalities. The best overall tumor response was partial response, which was seen in 37.9% of patients by independent assessment and in 46.7% by investigator assessment. Stable disease was seen in 48.3% of patients by independent assessment and in 43.3% by investigator assessment. Median time to tumor progression was 5.5 months by investigator assessment and median survival was 14.9 months. The data from this trial corroborate findings from a recent randomized phase II trial, which suggested improvements in efficacy variables, including survival, when ASA404 1200mg/m(2) was added to standard therapy for advanced NSCLC. The manageable safety profile, lack of adverse pharmacokinetic interactions and efficacy outcomes seen in this single-arm study suggest that ASA404 1800mg/m(2) is a viable dose for future combination studies.

Nucleosomes, complexes of DNA and histone proteins, are released during cell death into the blood circulation. Elevated serum and plasma levels have been found in various forms of cancer, but also in autoimmune diseases and acute situations such as stroke, trauma, and during sepsis. Here, the clinical relevance of circulating nucleosomes for diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring of cancer is reviewed. Several studies have shown that levels of nucleosomes are significantly higher in serum and plasma of cancer patients in comparison to healthy controls. However, because of elevations of nucleosome levels in patients with benign diseases relevant for differential diagnosis, they are not suitable for cancer diagnosis. Concerning tumor staging, nucleosome levels correlate with tumor stage and presence of metastases in gastrointestinal cancer, but not in other tumor types. Prognostic value of circulating nucleosomes is found in lung cancer in univariate analyses, but not in multivariate analyses. Circulating nucleosomes are most informative for the monitoring of cytotoxic therapy. Strongly decreasing levels are mainly found in patients with remission of disease, whereas constantly high or increasing values are associated with progressive disease during chemo- and radiotherapy. In addition, therapy outcome is already indicated by the nucleosomal course during the first week of chemo- and radiotherapy in patients with lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer as well as in hematologic malignancies. Despite their non-tumor-specificity, kinetics of nucleosomes are valuable markers for the early estimation of therapeutic efficacy and may be helpful to adapting early cancer therapy in the future.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether addition of the synthetic rexinoid bexarotene (Targretin; Eisai Inc, Woodcliff Lake, NJ) to standard first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel therapy provides additional survival benefit in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients with stage IIIB disease with pleural effusion, or stage IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1, were randomly assigned to bexarotene 400 mg/m2/d combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel, or assigned to carboplatin and paclitaxel alone. Bexarotene patients also received lipid-lowering agents on or before day 1. The primary efficacy end point was overall survival; secondary efficacy and supportive analyses were also conducted. Results A total of 612 patients (306 per arm) were enrolled onto the study. In the intent-to-treat population, no significant difference in survival occurred between the two arms. However, a subpopulation (approximately 40%) of bexarotene-treated patients who experienced National Cancer Institute grade 3/4 hypertriglyceridemia had significantly longer median survival than control patients (12.4 v 9.2 months; log-rank, P = .014). Bexarotene-treated patients with grade 3/4 hypertriglyceridemia who received the most benefit included those who were male, were smokers, experienced 6-month prior weight loss ≥ 5%, and had stage IV disease. The incidence and severity of most adverse events were similar between arms, although hyperlipidemia, neutropenia, fatigue, leukopenia, arthralgia, and diarrhea were more frequent in the bexarotene arm. Conclusion Although the addition of bexarotene to chemotherapy did not improve survival in the overall study population, occurrence of high-grade hypertriglyceridemia in bexarotene-treated patients strongly correlated with increased survival, suggesting that bexarotene may benefit a segment of first-line NSCLC patients.

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of the pan-ERBB inhibitor, CI-1033, in platinum-refractory or recurrent advanced-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods This open-label, randomized phase II trial evaluated CI-1033 in patients with advanced-stage NSCLC who experienced treatment failure after or were refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. Three oral CI-1033 doses were evaluated in 21-day dosing cycles: 50 mg daily for 21 consecutive days, 150 mg daily for 21 consecutive days, and 450 mg daily for 14 consecutive days followed by 7 days of no treatment. The primary efficacy end point was the 1-year survival rate. Results One hundred sixty-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment. Baseline patient demographics were well balanced. The most common drug-related adverse events were rash and diarrhea. The 450-mg arm (14 days on/7 days off) was closed early due to an excessive rate of adverse events. The 1-year survival rates were 29%, 26%, and 29%, respectively, in the three arms. The response rates were 2%, 2%, and 4%, and stable disease was confirmed in 16%, 23%, and 18% of patients, respectively, in the three study arms. Exploratory analyses demonstrated a prolonged survival in patients who developed a rash and in those with baseline tumor ERBB-2 expression. Conclusion CI-1033 had modest activity in unselected NSCLC patients but did not meet its primary end point. Future studies should focus on identifying methods of patient selection.

Purpose Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). Results A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). Conclusion Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

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).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.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.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.Eli Lilly and Company.

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.

Purpose This open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared oral topotecan versus intravenous (IV) docetaxel in patients with previously treated non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC, performance status ≤ 2, who had received only one prior chemotherapy regimen, were randomly assigned to treatment with oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or IV docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1 every 21 days. Results A total of 829 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, 1-year survival rates were 25.1% with topotecan and 28.7% with docetaxel. The difference of −3.6% (95% CI, −9.59% to 2.48%) met the predefined criteria for noninferiority of topotecan relative to docetaxel because the lower limit of the 95% CI was above −10%. Median survival was 27.9 weeks with topotecan and 30.7 weeks with docetaxel. Although not statistically significant (log-rank P = .057), the higher survival rate with docetaxel was maintained across the entire treatment period. The median time to progression was 11.3 weeks with topotecan versus 13.1 weeks with docetaxel (log-rank P = .02). The overall response rate was 5% in each group. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with docetaxel (60% v 50%). Grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with topotecan (26% v 10% and 26% v 7%, respectively). Conclusion Oral topotecan provides activity in the treatment of relapsed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Both regimens were well tolerated with differing safety profiles. Topotecan may provide an option for patients who desire an orally available treatment after relapse.

Purpose This open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study compared oral topotecan/intravenous cisplatin (TC) with intravenous (IV) etoposide/cisplatin (PE) in patients with untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Patients and Methods A total of 784 patients were randomly assigned to either oral topotecan 1.7 mg/m2/d × 5 with IV cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 5 (n = 389) or IV etoposide 100 mg/m2/d × 3 with IV cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 395) every 21 days. Results Overall survival (primary end point) was similar between groups (P = .48; median: TC, 39.3 weeks v PE, 40.3 weeks). One-year survival was 31% (95% CI, 27% to 36%) in both groups and the difference of −0.03 (95% CI, −6.53 to 6.47) met the predefined criteria of ≤ 10% absolute difference for noninferiority of TC relative to PE. Response rates were similar between groups (TC, 63% v PE, 69%). Time to progression was slightly but statistically longer with PE (log-rank P = .02; median: TC, 24.1 weeks v PE, 25.1 weeks). The regimens were similarly tolerable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with PE (84% v 59%), whereas grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with TC (38% v 21% and 38% v 23%, respectively). Lung Cancer Symptom Scale scores were statistically better with PE, but the differences were small and of debatable clinical significance. Conclusion Oral topotecan with cisplatin provides similar efficacy and tolerability to the standard (etoposide with cisplatin) in untreated ED-SCLC and may provide greater patient convenience compared with intravenous etoposide and cisplatin.

In the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, DNA is associated with several protein components and forms complexes known as nucleosomes. During cell death, particularly during apoptosis, endonucleases are activated that cleave the chromatin into multiple oligo- and mononucleosomes. Subsequently, these nucleosomes are packed into apoptotic bodies and are engulfed by macrophages or neighboring cells. In cases of high rates of cellular turnover and cell death, they also are released into the circulation and can be detected in serum or plasma. As enhanced cell death occurs under various pathologic conditions, elevated amounts of circulating nucleosomes are not specific for any benign or malignant disorder. However, the course of change in the nucleosomal levels in circulation of patients with malignant tumors during chemotherapy or radiotherapy is associated with the clinical outcome and can be useful for the therapeutic monitoring and the prediction of the therapeutic efficacy.

Seit der 1995 publizierten Meta-Analyse der NSCLC Cooperative Group gelten platinhaltige Regime bei Patienten mit inoperablem, lokal fortgeschrittenem oder metastasiertem NSCLC in der Erstlinientherapie als Standard [1]. Die platinbasierte Chemotherapie besitzt dieser Analyse zufolge einen 1-Jahres-Uberlebensbenefit von absolut 10% gegenuber einer alleinigen Supportivtherapie. Gleichzeitig wird eine effektivere Symptomkontrolle erreicht, die sich in einer verbesserten Lebensqualitat ausert. Dieses Ergebnis schlug sich in den Empfehlungen der American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) nieder, die sich 1997 bei NSCLC-Patienten im Stadium IV und gutem Performance-Status (PS) fur die platinhaltige Chemotherapie aussprach [2]. Allerdings wird die Verlangerung des Uberlebens um wenige Monate mit einer gewissen Toxizitat erkauft. Als problematisch gilt vor allem die Neurotoxizitat, wahrend die Nephrotoxizitat heute beherrschbar ist. Auch Ubelkeit und Erbrechen lassen sich mittlerweile dank effektiver Antiemetika gut kontrollieren. Erschwert wird die Cisplatin-basierte Therapie jedoch durch die fur den Patienten belastende Hydrierung. Platinfreie Regime auf dem Vormarsch

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/m2 intravenously (IV) on days 1 to 3 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m2 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.

Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Describe the clinical and pathological characteristics of the cutaneous rash secondary to anti-EGFR therapy.Explain the prognostic implications of the cutaneous rash secondary to anti-EGFR therapy.Discuss the treatment of the cutaneous rash secondary to anti-EGFR therapy. Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 hour of AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com Skin rash associated with HER1/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is common. The lack of clinical and patient guidance for this often chronic and sometimes distressing side effect makes rash management and etiology investigation high priorities. To address this, oncologists and dermatologists with experience with HER1/EGFR inhibitors attended the HER1/EGFR Inhibitor Rash Management Forum. Recommendations include continued analysis of the correlation between rash and clinical outcome and improving the accuracy and reproducibility of terminology and grading systems. Because acne vulgaris has a unique pathology, and the pathology and etiology of rash are unclear yet distinct from acne vulgaris, using such terms as acne, acne-like, or acneiform should be avoided. Until there is a specific dermatological definition, rash is best described using phenotypic terms for its appearance and location. It is currently unknown which agents are best for treating rash. Clinical trials of rash treatments are urgently required, and suggestions for agents to consider are made based on current knowledge. The effect of dose reduction or interruption on rash should also be investigated. Secondarily infected rash may be more frequent than has been previously recognized, and some investigators favor empiric use of an oral antibiotic if this appears to be the case. Suggestions for patients include makeup to camouflage the rash and an emollient to prevent and alleviate skin dryness. The increasing use of HER1/EGFR-targeted agents makes managing rash important. We hope the outcomes from this Forum provide background for future studies.