NEPTUNE: Phase 3 Study of First-Line Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: NEPTUNE, a phase 3, open-label study, evaluated first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type mNSCLC were randomized (1:1) to first-line durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks until progression) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks for up to four doses) or standard chemotherapy. Randomization was stratified by tumor programmed death-ligand 1 expression (≥25% versus <25%), tumor histologic type, and smoking history. The amended primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) greater than or equal to 20 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb and safety and tolerability in all treated patients. RESULTS: As of June 24, 2019, 823 patients were randomized (intention-to-treat [ITT]); 512 (62%) were bTMB-evaluable, with 129 of 512 (25%) having bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb (durvalumab plus tremelimumab [n = 69]; chemotherapy [n = 60]). Baseline characteristics were balanced in the intention-to-treat. Among patients with bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb, OS improvement with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio 0.71 [95% confidence interval: 0.49-1.05; p = 0.081]; median OS, 11.7 versus 9.1 months); the hazard ratio for PFS was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.15; median PFS, 4.2 versus 5.1 months). In the overall safety population, incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 20.7% (durvalumab plus tremelimumab) and 33.6% (chemotherapy). CONCLUSIONS: NEPTUNE did not meet its primary end point of improved OS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC and bTMB greater than or equal to 20 mut/Mb. Despite the amended study design, with a resultant small primary analysis population, therapeutic activity was aligned with expectations based on mechanistic biology and previous studies.

Curative-Intent Treatment with Durvalumab in Early-Stage Cancers.

The introduction of immunotherapy has fundamentally transformed the treatment landscape in cancer, providing long-term survival benefit for patients with advanced disease across multiple tumor types, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the placebo-controlled phase 3 PACIFIC trial, the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC who had not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT). These findings have led to the widespread acceptance of the 'PACIFIC regimen' (durvalumab after CRT) as the standard of care in this setting. Moreover, the PACIFIC trial is the first study to demonstrate a proven survival advantage with an immunotherapy in a curative-intent setting, thereby providing a strong rationale for further investigation of durvalumab in early-stage cancers. Herein, we describe the extensive clinical development program for durvalumab across multiple tumor types in curative-intent settings, outlining the scientific rationale(s) for its use and highlighting the innovative research (e.g., personalized cancer monitoring) advanced by these trials.

A Blood-based Assay for Assessment of Tumor Mutational Burden in First-line Metastatic NSCLC Treatment: Results from the MYSTIC Study.

PURPOSE: Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been shown to be predictive of survival benefit in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Measuring TMB in the blood (bTMB) using circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers practical advantages compared with TMB measurement in tissue (tTMB); however, there is a need for validated assays and identification of optimal cutoffs. We describe the analytic validation of a new bTMB algorithm and its clinical utility using data from the phase III MYSTIC trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dataset used for the clinical validation was from MYSTIC, which evaluated first-line durvalumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) ± tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 antibody) or chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC. bTMB and tTMB were evaluated using the GuardantOMNI and FoundationOne CDx assays, respectively. A Cox proportional hazards model and minimal P value cross-validation approach were used to identify the optimal bTMB cutoff. RESULTS: In MYSTIC, somatic mutations could be detected in ctDNA extracted from plasma samples in a majority of patients, allowing subsequent calculation of bTMB. The success rate for obtaining valid TMB scores was higher for bTMB (809/1,001; 81%) than for tTMB (460/735; 63%). Minimal P value cross-validation analysis confirmed the selection of bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase (mut/Mb) as the optimal cutoff for clinical benefit with durvalumab + tremelimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of the GuardantOMNI ctDNA platform for quantifying bTMB from plasma samples. Using the new bTMB algorithm and an optimal bTMB cutoff of ≥20 mut/Mb, high bTMB was predictive of clinical benefit with durvalumab + tremelimumab versus chemotherapy.

Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab vs Standard Chemotherapy in First-line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The MYSTIC Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 or its ligand (PD-L1) as monotherapies or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 have shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Objective: To compare durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (MYSTIC) was conducted at 203 cancer treatment centers in 17 countries. Patients with treatment-naive, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer who had no sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized to receive treatment with durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, or chemotherapy. Data were collected from July 21, 2015, to October 30, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive treatment with durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks), durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 weeks) plus tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses), or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points, assessed in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab vs chemotherapy, and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy. Analysis of blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB) was exploratory. Results: Between July 21, 2015, and June 8, 2016, 1118 patients were randomized. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. Among 488 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1, median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.2-20.8) with durvalumab vs 12.9 months (95% CI, 10.5-15.0) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 97.54% CI, 0.56-1.02; P = .04 [nonsignificant]). Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI, 9.0-17.7) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (HR vs chemotherapy, 0.85; 98.77% CI, 0.61-1.17; P = .20). Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.0) with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6-5.8) with chemotherapy (HR, 1.05; 99.5% CI, 0.72-1.53; P = .71). Among 809 patients with evaluable bTMB, those with a bTMB ≥20 mutations per megabase showed improved OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy (median OS, 21.9 months [95% CI, 11.4-32.8] vs 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.1-11.7]; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.74). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 55 (14.9%) of 369 patients who received treatment with durvalumab, 85 (22.9%) of 371 patients who received treatment with durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and 119 (33.8%) of 352 patients who received treatment with chemotherapy. These adverse events led to death in 2 (0.5%), 6 (1.6%), and 3 (0.9%) patients, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The phase 3 MYSTIC study did not meet its primary end points of improved OS with durvalumab vs chemotherapy or improved OS or PFS with durvalumab plus tremelimumab vs chemotherapy in patients with ≥25% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1. Exploratory analyses identified a bTMB threshold of ≥20 mutations per megabase for optimal OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab. Trial Registration: ClinicalT rials.gov Identifier: NCT02453282.

Avelumab (anti-PD-L1) as first-line switch-maintenance or second-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of avelumab, a human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 antibody, as first-line switch-maintenance (1 L-mn) or second-line (2 L) treatment in patients with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal cancer (GC/GEJC) previously treated with chemotherapy. METHODS: In a phase 1b expansion cohort, patients without (1 L-mn) or with (2 L) disease progression following first-line chemotherapy for advanced GC/GEJC received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Endpoints included best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients were enrolled (1 L-mn, n = 90; 2 L, n = 60) and median follow-up in the 1 L-mn and 2 L subgroups was 36.0 and 33.7 months, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 6.7% in both subgroups (95% CI, 2.5-13.9% and 1.8-16.2%, respectively), including complete responses in 2.2% of the 1 L-mn subgroup (n = 2). In the 1 L-mn and 2 L subgroups, median duration of response was 21.4 months (95% CI, 4.0-not estimable) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.8-8.3) and disease control rates were 56.7 and 28.3%, respectively. Median PFS in the 1 L-mn and 2 L subgroups was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.3-4.1) and 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.3-1.5), with 6-month PFS rates of 23.0% (95% CI, 14.7-32.4%) and 7.9% (95% CI, 2.6-17.2%), and median OS was 11.1 months (95% CI, 8.9-13.7) and 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.4-9.4), respectively. In the 1 L-mn subgroup, median OS measured from start of 1 L chemotherapy was 18.7 months (95% CI, 15.4-20.6). Across both subgroups, 20.7% had an infusion-related reaction of any grade. Other common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade included fatigue (10.0%) and nausea (6.7%). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 4.0% of patients. Overall, 8.7% had a grade ≥3 TRAE, including 1 treatment-related death. CONCLUSION: Avelumab showed clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with GC/GEJC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01772004 ; registered 21 January 2013.

Efficacy and Safety of Avelumab for Patients With Recurrent or Refractory Ovarian Cancer: Phase 1b Results From the JAVELIN Solid Tumor Trial.

Importance: Current treatment options for progressive ovarian cancer provide limited benefit, particularly in patients whose disease has become resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 agent, in a cohort of patients with previously treated recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an expansion cohort of a phase 1b, open-label study (JAVELIN Solid Tumor), 125 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had received chemotherapy including a platinum agent were enrolled between November 6, 2013, and August 27, 2015. Statistical analysis was performed from December 31, 2016, to October 9, 2018. Intervention: Patients received avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal from the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified end points in this cohort included confirmed best overall response (per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1), immune-related best overall response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, results of programmed death-ligand 1 expression-based analyses, and safety. Results: A total of 125 women (median age, 62.0 years [range, 27-84 years]) who had received a median of 3 prior lines of treatment (range, 0-10) for advanced disease were enrolled in the study. Patients received avelumab for a median of 2.8 months (range, 0.5-27.4 months), with a median follow-up of 26.6 months (range, 16-38 months). A confirmed objective response occurred in 12 patients (9.6%; 95% CI, 5.1%-16.2%), including a complete response in 1 patient (0.8%) and a partial response in 11 patients (8.8%). The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 10.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-16.7%) and median overall survival was 11.2 months (95% CI, 8.7-15.4 months). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 25 patients (20.0%). Other frequent treatment-related adverse events (any grade event occurring in ≥10% of patients) were fatigue (17 [13.6%]), diarrhea (15 [12.0%]), and nausea (14 [11.2%]). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 patients (7.2%), of which only the level of lipase increased (3 [2.4%]) occurred in more than 1 patient. Twenty-one patients (16.8%) had an immune-related adverse event of any grade. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: Avelumab demonstrated antitumor activity and acceptable safety in heavily pretreated patients with recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01772004.

Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN solid tumor trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of avelumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with previously treated metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma (mACC). METHODS: In this phase 1b expansion cohort, patients with mACC and prior platinum-based therapy received avelumab at 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Continuation of mitotane was permitted; however, mitotane levels during the study were not recorded. Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1. RESULTS: Fifty patients received avelumab and were followed for a median of 16.5 months. Prior treatment included ≥2 lines in 74.0%; mitotane was continued in 50.0%. The objective response rate (ORR) was 6.0% (95% CI, 1.3% to 16.5%; partial response in 3 patients). Twenty-one patients (42.0%) had stable disease as best response (disease control rate, 48.0%). Median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.0), median overall survival (OS) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 15.0), and the 1-year OS rate was 43.4% (95% CI, 27.9% to 57.9%). In evaluable patients with PD-L1+ (n = 12) or PD-L1- (n = 30) tumors (≥5% tumor cell cutoff), ORR was 16.7% vs 3.3% (P = .192). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 82.0%; the most common were nausea (20.0%), fatigue (18.0%), hypothyroidism (14.0%), and pyrexia (14.0%). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 16.0%; no grade 4 to 5 TRAEs occurred. Twelve patients (24.0%) had an immune-related TRAE of any grade, which were grade 3 in 2 patients (4.0%): adrenal insufficiency (n = 1), and pneumonitis (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Avelumab showed clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with platinum-treated mACC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01772004 ; registered January 21, 2013.

Evolution of checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancers: Current status and future perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment options for patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) are associated with limited efficacy and some toxicity. Recently, immunotherapy with antibodies that inhibit the programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) interaction has emerged as a new treatment option. This manuscript reviews early-phase and late-phase trials of immunotherapy in advanced GC/GEJC. METHODS: Searches for studies of immunotherapy in GC/GEJC were performed using PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and abstract databases for select annual congresses. Findings were interpreted based on expert opinion. RESULTS: Monotherapy with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies, including pembrolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab, durvalumab, and atezolizumab, has shown interesting objective response rates (ORRs; 7-26%) across varying GC/GEJC populations, with ORRs potentially higher in PD-L1 + vs PD-L1 - tumors. Safety profiles compare favorably with chemotherapy, with grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 5-17%. Based on a large phase 2 study, pembrolizumab was approved in the United States for third-line treatment of patients with PD-L1 + GC/GEJC. In a phase 3 trial, third-line or later nivolumab increased overall survival vs placebo in an Asian population, leading to regulatory approval in Japan, although other completed phase 3 trials did not show superiority for pembrolizumab or avelumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy. Other trials in advanced GC/GEJC are assessing various anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based strategies, including administration in first-line and later-line settings and as combination (with chemotherapy or agents targeting other immune checkpoint proteins, eg, CTLA-4, LAG-3, and IDO) or switch-maintenance regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have shown encouraging clinical activity in advanced GC/GEJC. Results from ongoing phase 3 trials are needed to further evaluate the potential roles of these agents within the continuum of care.

Continued use of afatinib with the addition of cetuximab after progression on afatinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and acquired resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib.

OBJECTIVES: In a phase Ib trial, afatinib plus cetuximab demonstrated promising clinical activity (objective response rate [ORR]: 29%; median progression-free survival [PFS]: 4.7 months) in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib. Here, a separate cohort exploring afatinib plus cetuximab after progression on afatinib is reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC who progressed on erlotinib or gefitinib received afatinib 40mg daily until progression, followed by afatinib daily plus cetuximab 500mg/m2 every 2 weeks until progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). Endpoints included safety, ORR, and PFS. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received afatinib monotherapy. Two (5%) patients responded; median PFS was 2.7 months. Thirty-six patients transitioned to afatinib plus cetuximab. Four (11%) patients responded; median PFS was 2.9 months. Median PFS with afatinib plus cetuximab for patients who received afatinib monotherapy for ≥12 versus <12 weeks was 4.9 versus 1.8 months (p=0.0354), and for patients with T790M-positive versus T790M-negative tumors was 4.8 versus 1.8 months (p=0.1306). Fifty percent of patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab experienced drug-related grade 3/4 AEs. The most frequent drug-related AEs (any grade) were diarrhea (70%), rash (49%), and fatigue (35%) with afatinib monotherapy and rash (69%), paronychia (39%), and dry skin (36%) with afatinib plus cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Sequential EGFR blockade with afatinib followed by afatinib plus cetuximab had a predictable safety profile and demonstrated modest activity in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC with resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01090011.

Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a major unmet need for effective treatments in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. LUX-Lung 8 compared afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) with erlotinib (a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor), as second-line treatment for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. METHODS: We did this open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 183 cancer centres in 23 countries worldwide. We enrolled adults with stage IIIB or IV squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based-chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. The randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system and stratified by ethnic origin (eastern Asian vs non-eastern Asian). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). The key secondary endpoint was overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01523587. FINDINGS: 795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). Median follow-up at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival was 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-10·2), at which point enrolment was not complete. Progression free-survival at the primary analysis was significantly longer with afatinib than with erlotinib (median 2·4 months [95% CI 1·9-2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9-2·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00], p=0·0427). At the time of the primary analysis of overall survival (median follow-up 18·4 months [IQR 13·8-22·4]), overall survival was significantly greater in the afatinib group than in the erloinib group (median 7·9 months [95% CI 7·2-8·7] vs 6·8 months [5·9-7·8]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69-0·95], p=0·0077), as were progression-free survival (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9-2·1]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69-0·96], p=0·0103) and disease control (201 [51%] of 398 patients vs 157 [40%] of 397; p=0·0020). The proportion of patients with an objective response did not differ significantly between groups (22 [6%] vs 11 [3%]; p=0·0551). Tumour shrinkage occurred in 103 (26%) of 398 patients versus 90 (23%) of 397 patients. Adverse event profiles were similar in each group: 224 (57%) of 392 patients in the afatinib group versus 227 (57%) of 395 in the erlotinib group had grade 3 or higher adverse events. We recorded higher incidences of treatment-related grade 3 diarrhoea with afatinib (39 [10%] vs nine [2%]), of grade 3 stomatitis with afatinib (16 [4%] vs none), and of grade 3 rash or acne with erlotinib (23 [6%] vs 41 [10%]). INTERPRETATION: The significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with afatinib compared with erlotinib, along with a manageable safety profile and the convenience of oral administration suggest that afatinib could be an additional option for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Phase II study of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, in demographically and genotypically defined lung adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Afatinib, an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Other potential biomarkers predicting response to afatinib, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) mutations and EGFR gene amplification, have not been validated yet. This phase II study investigated whether afatinib conferred clinical benefit in cohorts of adenocarcinoma patients with: (1) EGFR mutation and failing on erlotinib/gefitinib; or (2) increased copy number of EGFR by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH); or (3) HER2 mutation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients started daily afatinib 50mg monotherapy. Upon disease progression, patients could continue, at the investigator's discretion, afatinib (40mg) with the addition of paclitaxel (80mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks/4-week cycle). Endpoints included confirmed objective response (OR), progression-free survival (PFS), disease control, and safety. RESULTS: Of 41 patients treated (cohort 1: n=32; cohort 2: n=2; cohort 3: n=7), 33 received afatinib monotherapy; eight subsequently received afatinib plus paclitaxel. With afatinib monotherapy, one patient achieved a confirmed OR (partial response [PR]; cohort 2). Two further patients achieved unconfirmed PRs (one each in cohort 1 and cohort 3). Disease control was achieved by 17/32 (53%), 2/2 (100%) and 5/7 (71%) patients in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In patients receiving combination therapy (median PFS: 6.7 weeks), one (cohort 3) had confirmed PR of 41.9 weeks. The most common afatinib-related adverse events were diarrhea (95%) and rash/acne (80%). CONCLUSION: Afatinib demonstrated signs of clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with activating HER2 or EGFR mutations or EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

A phase I, dose-escalation trial of continuous- and pulsed-dose afatinib combined with pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, demonstrated synergistic inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant cell growth with pemetrexed. This phase I study investigated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of afatinib plus pemetrexed in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: In a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, patients were given intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle (maximum 6 cycles), combined with continuous daily oral afatinib (schedule A [SA]; starting dose 30 mg, escalation to 50 mg) or pulsed-dose daily oral afatinib (schedule B [SB]; starting dose 50 mg, escalation to 70 mg) on days 1-6 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was determination of MTD based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in cycle 1. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were treated (SA: n = 23; SB: n = 30). Eight patients had DLTs in SA, 11 patients in SB; diarrhea and fatigue were the most common. MTD of afatinib was 30 mg in SA and 50 mg in SB. Six patients in SA and eight in SB completed 6 treatment cycles. One patient in each schedule had confirmed objective response; 18/53 patients had disease control (SA: n = 7; SB: n = 11). Most frequent drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, fatigue, and stomatitis. No relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous- or pulsed-dose afatinib combined with pemetrexed exhibited a manageable safety profile. Pulsed dosing conferred no apparent safety or dose advantage. Continuous-dose afatinib 30 mg/day with pemetrexed is recommended for phase II studies.

Dual inhibition of EGFR with afatinib and cetuximab in kinase inhibitor-resistant EGFR-mutant lung cancer with and without T790M mutations.

UNLABELLED: EGFR-mutant lung cancers responsive to reversible EGFR inhibitors (gefitinib/erlotinib) develop acquired resistance, mediated by second-site EGFR T790M mutation in >50% of cases. Preclinically, afatinib (irreversible ErbB family blocker) plus cetuximab (anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody) overcomes T790M-mediated resistance. This phase Ib study combining afatinib and cetuximab enrolled heavily pretreated patients with advanced EGFR-mutant lung cancer and acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib. Patients provided post-acquired-resistance tumor samples for profiling EGFR mutations. Among 126 patients, objective response rate (overall 29%) was comparable in T790M-positive and T790M-negative tumors (32% vs. 25%; P = 0.341). Median progression-free survival was 4.7 months (95% confidence interval, 4.3-6.4), and the median duration of confirmed objective response was 5.7 months (range, 1.8-24.4). Therapy-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 44%/2% of patients. Afatinib-cetuximab demonstrated robust clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in EGFR-mutant lung cancers with acquired resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib, both with and without T790M mutations, warranting further investigation. SIGNIFICANCE: This article reports the results of a trial combining afatinib and cetuximab in patients with acquired resistance and details the first clinical proof-of-concept for the preclinical hypothesis that a significant proportion of tumors in patients with acquired resistance to gefitinib/erlotinib remain dependent on EGFR signaling for survival.

Phase 2 trial of afatinib, an ErbB family blocker, in solid tumors genetically screened for target activation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, was evaluated in patients who had 1 of 4 categories of solid tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (EGFR/HER2) gene amplification or EGFR-activating mutations. METHODS: Patients with previously treated but ErbB inhibitor-naive esophagogastric, biliary tract, urothelial tract, or gynecologic cancers (lung cancers were excluded) harboring EGFR/HER2 gene amplification or high polysomy were identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Tumors were also screened for EGFR mutations. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate; secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics, and safety. RESULTS: Of 385 prescreened patients, 38 had FISH-positive tumors (10 with EGFR amplification and 29 with HER2 amplification or high polysomy [1 tumor had EGFR/HER2 high polysomy]; none had EGFR-activating mutations), and 20 patients received treatment with afatinib 50 mg daily. The objective response rate was 5% (1 of 20 patients), and the best objective response included 1 complete response. Eight patients experienced stable disease. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea, rash, and decreased appetite. The trial closed early because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent afatinib activity was limited, yet encouraging, in selected tumors that were screened prospectively for target activation. The implementation of a biomarker-driven approach using a low-frequency biomarker for patient selection across multiple tumor types can be challenging.

Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy.

When uncomplicated neutropenia during doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy for the treatment of Hodgkin's lymphoma is encountered, it is unclear whether or not treatment should be modified. In the present study, we determined the incidence of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and the relationship of febrile neutropenia to grade III/IV neutropenia and dose modification, in a large university patient population. We reviewed the charts of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2002 who were treated with ABVD chemotherapy, and seen at the University of Iowa with complete diagnosis, staging, and treatment dosing records. Adequate data was available on 894 treatments in 81 patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ABVD chemotherapy. Grade III/IV neutropenia was present on the scheduled day of treatment in 187 (20.9%) treatments in 64 (79%) patients. Grade III/IV neutropenia was most common at cycle 1 day 15. Febrile neutropenia developed nine times in eight patients, and eight episodes of febrile neutropenia developed when the treatment-day absolute neutrophil count (ANC) > or =1000. Dose delay of >4 days and/or dose reduction to <80% of original doxorubicin dose following grade III/IV neutropenia occurred in 29 of 187 treatments, with no episodes of febrile neutropenia. With grade III/IV neutropenia on the day of therapy, 158 treatments were administered without dose reduction or dose delay with one subsequent episode of febrile neutropenia. Neutropenia during ABVD is common, and dose modification for uncomplicated neutropenia on the day of treatment may not reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. It may be possible to maintain dose intensity in the face of uncomplicated neutropenia during ABVD therapy.