Search

Background: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide alone. Methods: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, or platinum–etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum–etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide versus platinum–etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. Findings: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, and 269 to platinum–etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3–27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6–12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum–etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62–0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3–14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3–11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum–etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum–etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum–etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum–etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum–etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. Funding: AstraZeneca.

This study compared the results of nivolumab treatment in patients with pulmonary adenocarcinomas based upon previous chemotherapeutic regimens.The data source for this retrospective study was the Czech VILP registry of patients with nivolumab-treated adenocarcinomas in second and higher lines of treatment. In relation to objective response rate, progression-free interval, and overall survival, three comparisons of patient were made: A: Those treated in first line with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus carboplatin with paclitaxel or vinorelbine; B: treatment with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus carboplatin with paclitaxel/vinorelbine and bevacizumab; and C: treatment in previous lines with pemetrexed (first-line cisplatin and pemetrexed plus those treated in second line with pemetrexed) versus treatment with taxane (first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel only plus those treated with second-line docetaxel).We observed no differences in objective response rate or progression-free survival between patients treated with the stated chemotherapeutic regimens. We observed a trend towards better overall survival for patients treated with carboplatin plus taxanes or vinorelbine with/without bevacizumab.From our overall survival data, a chemotherapeutic regimen of carboplatin plus taxanes or vinorelbine with/without bevacizumab might be a better partner for immunotherapy than a cisplatin and pemetrexed-based one.

Background: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum–etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. Methods: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide; or platinum–etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum–etoposide consisted of etoposide 80–100 mg/m2 on days 1–3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5–6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75–80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum–etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum–etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum–etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus the platinum–etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. Findings: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 269 to the platinum–etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59–0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5–14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3–11·2) in the platinum–etoposide group, with 34% (26·9–41·0) versus 25% (18·4–31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum–etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. Interpretation: First-line durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Background First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival in patients with untreated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumour proportion score (TPS) of 50% or greater. We investigated overall survival after treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater. Methods This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done in 213 medical centres in 32 countries. Eligible patients were adults (≥18 years) with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without a sensitising EGFR mutation or ALK translocation and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0 or 1, life expectancy 3 months or longer, and a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater. Randomisation was computer generated, accessed via an interactive voice-response and integrated web-response system, and stratified by region of enrolment (east Asia vs rest of world), ECOG performance status score (0 vs 1), histology (squamous vs non-squamous), and PD-L1 TPS (≥50% vs 1-49%). Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 in blocks of four per stratum to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles or the investigator's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy for four to six cycles. Primary endpoints were overall survival in patients with a TPS of 50% or greater, 20% or greater, and 1% or greater (one-sided significance thresholds, p=0·0122, p=0·0120, and p=0·0124, respectively) in the intention-to-treat population, assessed sequentially if the previous findings were significant. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02220894. Findings From Dec 19, 2014, to March 6, 2017, 1274 patients (902 men, 372 women, median age 63 years [IQR 57-69]) with a PD-L1 TPS of 1% or greater were allocated to pembrolizumab (n=637) or chemotherapy (n=637) and included in the intention-to-treat population. 599 (47%) had a TPS of 50% or greater and 818 patients (64%) had a TPS of 20% or greater. As of Feb 26, 2018, median follow-up was 12·8 months. Overall survival was significantly longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group in all three TPS populations (≥50% hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·56-0·85, p=0·0003; ≥20% 0·77, 0·64-0·92, p=0·0020, and ≥1% 0·81, 0·71-0·93, p=0·0018). The median surival values by TPS population were 20·0 months (95% CI 15·4-24·9) for pembrolizumab versus 12·2 months (10·4-14·2) for chemotherapy, 17·7 months (15·3-22·1) versus 13·0 months (11·6-15·3), and 16·7 months (13·9-19·7) versus 12·1 months (11·3-13·3), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 113 (18%) of 636 treated patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 252 (41%) of 615 in the chemotherapy group and led to death in 13 (2%) and 14 (2%) patients, respectively. Interpretation The benefit-to-risk profile suggests that pembrolizumab monotherapy can be extended as first-line therapy to patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without sensitising EGFR or ALK alterations and with low PD-L1 TPS. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.

We investigated efficacy differences for afatinib versus gefitinib in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.We retrospectively analysed data for 343 patients with NSCLC with performance status 1 having EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib or afatinib. Overall response rate (ORR) was tested by Fisher's exact test. Overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.ORR did not differ in any group or subgroup. Among all patients, we observed significantly longer PFS for those treated with afatinib vs. gefitinib (median 13.4 vs. 9.5 months, p=0.026), but only a nonsignificant trend was observed for OS. We showed nonsignificant trends of better PFS and OS using afatinib for exon 19 deletion and L858R subgroups. We observed no significant PFS differences for other EGFR mutations but a nonsignificant trend towards better OS for those treated with afatinib.Afatinib led to longer PFS for patients with common EGFR mutations but not for those with rare mutations.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR tyrosine kinase or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genetic aberrations (EGFR−/ALK−), but clinical benefit in patients with EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements (EGFR+/ALK+) has not been shown. We assessed the effect of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) treatment in three cohorts of patients with NSCLC defined by EGFR/ALK status and tumour expression of PD-L1. Methods: ATLANTIC is a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial at 139 study centres in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC with disease progression following at least two previous systemic regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy (and tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy if indicated); were aged 18 years or older; had a WHO performance status score of 0 or 1; and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Key exclusion criteria included mixed small-cell lung cancer and NSCLC histology; previous exposure to any anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibody; and any previous grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse event while receiving any immunotherapy agent. Patients in cohort 1 had EGFR+/ALK+ NSCLC with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients in cohorts 2 and 3 had EGFR−/ALK− NSCLC; cohort 2 included patients with at least 25%, or less than 25%, of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression, and cohort 3 included patients with at least 90% of tumour cells with PD-L1 expression. Patients received durvalumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, via intravenous infusion, for up to 12 months. Retreatment was allowed for patients who benefited but then progressed after completing 12 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increased tumour expression of PD-L1 (defined as ≥25% of tumour cells in cohorts 1 and 2, and ≥90% of tumour cells in cohort 3) who achieved an objective response, assessed in patients who were evaluable for response per independent central review according to RECIST version 1.1. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of durvalumab and for whom any post-dose data were available. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer open to accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02087423. Findings: Between Feb 25, 2014, and Dec 28, 2015, 444 patients were enrolled and received durvalumab: 111 in cohort 1, 265 in cohort 2, and 68 in cohort 3. Among patients with at least 25% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1 who were evaluable for objective response per independent central review, an objective response was achieved in 9 (12·2%, 95% CI 5·7–21·8) of 74 patients in cohort 1 and 24 (16·4%, 10·8–23·5) of 146 patients in cohort 2. In cohort 3, 21 (30·9%, 20·2–43·3) of 68 patients achieved an objective response. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40 (9%) of 444 patients overall: six (5%) of 111 patients in cohort 1, 22 (8%) of 265 in cohort 2, and 12 (18%) of 68 in cohort 3. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were pneumonitis (four patients [1%]), elevated gamma-glutamyltransferase (four [1%]), diarrhoea (three [1%]), infusion-related reaction (three [1%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (two [

Summary Background Whether adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We aimed to compare the effect of adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation on survival in patients with completely resected NSCLC. Methods 840 patients with stage IB–IIIA NSCLC from 101 centres in 14 countries were randomly assigned to observation (n=433) or to 30 mg/m 2 vinorelbine plus 100 mg/m 2 cisplatin (n=407). Postoperative radiotherapy was not mandatory and was undertaken according to every centre's policy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN95053737. Findings 367 patients in the chemotherapy group and 431 in the control group received their assigned treatment. 301 (36%) patients had stage IB disease, 203 (24%) had stage II disease, and 325 (39%) had stage IIIA disease. Tolerance to chemotherapy mainly included neutropenia in 335 (92%) patients and febrile neutropenia in 34 (9%); seven (2%) toxic deaths were also recorded. Compliance was greater with cisplatin than with vinorelbine (median dose intensity 89% [range 17–108] vs 59% [17–100]). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range 43–116), median survival was 65·7 months (95% CI 47·9–88·5) in the chemotherapy group and 43·7 (35·7–52·3) months in the observation group. Adjusted risk for death was significantly reduced in patients assigned chemotherapy compared with controls (hazard ratio 0·80 [95% CI 0·66–0·96]; p=0·017). Overall survival at 5 years with chemotherapy improved by 8·6%, which was maintained at 7 years (8·4%). Interpretation Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin extends survival in patients with completely resected NSCLC, better defining indication of adjuvant chemotherapy.