Durvalumab in Combination With Olaparib Versus Durvalumab Alone as Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic NSCLC: The Phase 2 ORION Study.

INTRODUCTION: Increased DNA damage triggered through poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition may modify tumor immunogenicity, sensitizing tumors to immunotherapy. ORION (NCT03775486) evaluated the combination of olaparib with durvalumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: ORION is a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, international study. Patients with metastatic NSCLC (without activating EGFR or ALK aberrations) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled to receive initial therapy with durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously; every 3 wk) plus platinum-based chemotherapy for four cycles. Patients without disease progression were then randomized (1:1) to maintenance durvalumab (1500 mg; every 4 wk) plus either olaparib (300 mg orally) or placebo (both twice daily); randomization was stratified by objective response during initial therapy and tumor histologic type. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and February 2020, 269 of 401 patients who received initial therapy were randomized. As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up: 9.6 mo), median PFS was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval: 5.3-7.9) with durvalumab plus olaparib versus 5.3 months (3.7-5.8) with durvalumab plus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.02, p = 0.074). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of durvalumab and olaparib. Anemia was the most common adverse event (AE) with durvalumab plus olaparib (26.1% versus 8.2% with durvalumab plus placebo). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs (34.3% versus 17.9%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (10.4% versus 4.5%) was numerically higher with durvalumab plus olaparib versus durvalumab plus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with durvalumab in combination with olaparib was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus durvalumab alone, although numerical improvement was observed.

Successful treatment of azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis in a bottlenose dolphin with high-dose posaconazole.

Invasive aspergillosis due to azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus is difficult to manage. We describe a case of azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis in a female bottlenose dolphin, who failed to respond to voriconazole and posaconazole therapy. As intravenous therapy was precluded, high dose posaconazole was initiated aimed at achieving trough levels exceeding 3 mg/l. Posaconazole serum levels of 3-9.5 mg/l were achieved without significant side-effects. Follow-up bronchoscopy and computed tomography showed complete resolution of the lesions.

Thalidomide versus active supportive care for maintenance in patients with malignant mesothelioma after first-line chemotherapy (NVALT 5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Standard chemotherapy does not lead to long-term survival in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Malignant pleural mesothelioma is strongly dependent on vasculature with high vessel counts and high concentrations of serum vascular growth factors. Thalidomide has shown antiangiogenic activity, and we hypothesised that its use in the maintenance setting could improve outcomes. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study, eligible patients had proven malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma and had received a minimum of four cycles of first-line treatment containing at least pemetrexed, with or without cisplatin or carboplatin, and had not progressed on this treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by previous first-line chemotherapy, histological subtype, and recruiting hospital) to receive thalidomide 200 mg per day (including a 2 week run in of 100 mg per day) plus active supportive care or active supportive care alone until disease progression. Patients were required to be registered and to start treatment with thalidomide within 10 weeks after the end of the first-line chemotherapy. Thalidomide was given for a maximum of 1 year or until unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression. The primary analyses were by intention to treat. The study is registered, ISRCTN13632914. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2004, and Dec 23, 2009, we randomly assigned 222 patients, 111 in each group (one patient on active supportive care later withdrew consent and was excluded from analyses). At the time of this final analysis, median follow-up was 33.1 months (IQR 22.3-66.8), and physician-reported disease progression had occurred in 104 patients in the thalidomide group and 107 in the active supportive care group; 92 patients in the thalidomide group and 93 in the active supportive care group had died. Median time to progression in the thalidomide group was 3·6 months (95% CI 3.2-4.1) compared with 3.5 months (2.3-4.8) in the active supportive care group (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.73-1.20, p=0.72). 43 (39%) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in the thalidomide group and 31 (28%) in the active supportive care group; neurosensory events were reported by two (2%) patients on thalidomide and none on active supportive care, cardiac events by two (2%) patients on thalidomide and three (3%) on active supportive care, and thromboembolic events by three (3%) patients on thalidomide and none on active supportive care. INTERPRETATION: No benefit was noted in time to progression with the addition of thalidomide maintenance to first-line chemotherapy. Different treatment strategies are needed to improve outcomes in patients with malignant mesothelioma. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF), Eli Lilly, NSW Dust Disease Compensation Board, University of Sydney, and Cancer Australia.

Survival without toxicity for cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a risk-benefit analysis of a large phase III study.

BACKGROUND: In a large phase III study, cisplatin and pemetrexed had non-inferior efficacy and better tolerability compared with cisplatin and gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current analysis characterised the clinical benefit (i.e. survival) relative to clinical risk (i.e. drug-related toxicity) of the doublets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1669 patients (of 1725 randomised) received 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed IV followed by 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin IV on day 1 or gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, administered every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit to risk) was defined as the time from randomisation to the first occurrence of any grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity or death, and was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS: In the overall patient population, survival without grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity was significantly longer for patients treated with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus cisplatin and gemcitabine (HR=0.70; P<0.001), as was survival without grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.83; P<0.001). For patients with non-squamous NSCLC, survival without toxicity with cisplatin and pemetrexed was superior to cisplatin and gemcitabine for grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.64; P<0.001) and for grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.77; P<0.001), whereas no treatment-arm difference was observed in the squamous subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-squamous NSCLC treated with front-line cisplatin and pemetrexed have superior survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit-to-risk profile) compared with patients treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine.

Formoterol mono- and combination therapy with tiotropium in patients with COPD: a 6-month study.

Although guidelines recommend combining long-acting bronchodilators in COPD, data are limited. We examined the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol, tiotropium and the combination in patients with COPD. Eight hundred and forty-seven patients with COPD (mean FEV(1) 52% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC 53%) were randomized to receive one of the following four treatments for 24 weeks: formoterol 10 microg b.i.d. plus tiotropium 18 microg o.d.; formoterol 10 microg b.i.d.; tiotropium 18 microg o.d., or placebo. The study was partially blinded (formoterol and placebo). For the primary endpoint, FEV(1) 2h post-dose after 24 weeks, there were small differences in favour of the combination therapy versus formoterol (0.07 L, p=0.044) or tiotropium (0.06 L, p=0.066). All three treatments were superior to placebo (p<0.001). The combination was statistically superior to monotherapy for: the primary endpoint (p=0.044 vs. formoterol); FEV(1) 5 min after the first dose (p<0.001) and at 12 weeks (p<0.05 vs. tiotropium); and peak expiratory flow averaged over the first 6 weeks (p<0.001 vs. both). The three active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo for secondary endpoints: COPD-related 'bad days', symptoms, use of rescue medication and peak expiratory flow, and aspects of health-related quality of life. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar with all active treatments, although COPD-related adverse events were more common with tiotropium. Combined bronchodilator therapy may be a valuable treatment option for patients with COPD.