Clinical utility of a blood-based EGFR mutation test in patients receiving first-line erlotinib therapy in the ENSURE, FASTACT-2, and ASPIRATION studies.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an adenocarcinoma component are recommended to undergo epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing when being considered for EGFR targeted therapy. We conducted an exploratory analysis to inform the clinical utility of EGFR mutation testing in blood cell-free DNA using the cobas®EGFR Mutation Test v2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden. RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.

A phase Ib study to assess the efficacy and safety of vismodegib in combination with ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The JAK inhibitor (JAKi) ruxolitinib is standard treatment for myelofibrosis (MF), but some patients are unresponsive. Pre-clinical and clinical data suggest that addition of a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HPI) to ruxolitinib might improve response. Vismodegib is an HPI approved for treatment of locally advanced and metastatic basal cell carcinoma. The MYLIE study assessed the safety and efficacy of combining ruxolitinib with vismodegib in ruxolitinib-naive patients with MF and characterized the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vismodegib in this setting. METHODS: In this phase Ib study, ten patients with intermediate- or high-risk primary or secondary MF received open-label vismodegib (150 mg/day orally) and ruxolitinib (15 or 20 mg orally twice daily, depending on baseline platelet count) for up to 48 weeks, or until withdrawal or discontinuation. PK samples were collected throughout the study for comparison with other patient populations. Efficacy outcomes at week 24 included spleen response (≥ 35% reduction in volume by imaging) and improvement in bone marrow fibrosis by central and investigator assessment, symptom response (≥ 50% reduction in Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom score), and anemia response (per International Working Group for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment revised response criteria). RESULTS: As of November 17, 2017, eight patients had completed 48 weeks of treatment with vismodegib and ruxolitinib; two discontinued treatment early. At week 24 (± 1 week), three patients experienced a spleen response by central review and no patients showed a 1-grade improvement in bone marrow fibrosis by central review. Five patients experienced symptom response at week 24, and no patients experienced an anemia response. The most common adverse events were muscle spasm (100% of patients), alopecia (70%), dysgeusia (50%), thrombocytopenia (50%), and nausea (40%); these events were predominantly grade 1/2. Three patients experienced a total of six serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of vismodegib and ruxolitinib was tolerable and no new safety signals were seen, but there was no evidence that the addition of vismodegib to ruxolitinib improved any of the efficacy outcome measures assessed. Further evaluation of this combination will not be pursued. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02593760 . Registered November 2, 2015.

Maintenance erlotinib versus erlotinib at disease progression in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who have not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy (IUNO study).

OBJECTIVE: The phase III IUNO trial assessed the benefit of maintenance erlotinib versus erlotinib at progression in advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had not progressed following four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients had stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, no known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-activating mutation, and objective response or disease stabilization after platinum-based induction chemotherapy. Central EGFR-mutation testing was undertaken on tumors from patients with unknown or wild-type EGFR status following local testing. Patients were randomized to receive blinded maintenance erlotinib 150mg/day ('early erlotinib') or placebo. Those who progressed on placebo received open-label erlotinib ('late erlotinib'); patients who progressed on erlotinib received approved second-line chemotherapy or best supportive care. Primary endpoint: overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 643 patients were randomized to receive maintenance erlotinib (n=322) or placebo (n=321). As of March 23, 2015, 242 (75.2%) OS events had occurred with 'early erlotinib' versus 235 (73.2%) with 'late erlotinib'. Median OS was 9.7 and 9.5 months with 'early erlotinib' and 'late erlotinib', respectively (HR, 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.22; log-rank p=0.82). No progression-free survival, objective response rate, or disease control rate benefit was observed with maintenance erlotinib. 410 patients entered the second-line phase of the study: 160 patients (50%) from the maintenance erlotinib arm and 250 patients (78%) from the maintenance placebo arm. The pattern of adverse events (AEs) was consistent with previous trials; 11 patients who received blinded erlotinib and 3 who received placebo died during the blinded maintenance phase due to nontreatment-related AEs. CONCLUSIONS: OS with maintenance erlotinib was not superior to second-line treatment in patients whose tumor did not harbor an EGFR-activating mutation. Safety results were consistent with the established safety profile of erlotinib. Thus, maintenance treatment with erlotinib in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC without EGFR-activating mutations is considered unfavorable.

Randomized study of danoprevir/ritonavir-based therapy for HCV genotype 1 patients with prior partial or null responses to peginterferon/ribavirin.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic hepatitis C treatment for prior non-responders to peginterferon (PegIFN)/ribavirin remains suboptimal. The MATTERHORN study evaluated regimens containing ritonavir-boosted danoprevir (danoprevir/r) in prior PegIFN alfa/ribavirin non-responders. METHODS: Prior partial responders (N=152) were randomized to 24 weeks of twice-daily danoprevir/r 100/100mg, mericitabine 1000 mg and ribavirin 1000/1200 mg (IFN-free); danoprevir/r plus PegIFN alfa-2a/ribavirin (triple); or danoprevir/r, mericitabine and PegIFN alfa-2a/ribavirin (Quad). Prior null responders (N=229) were randomized to 24 weeks of IFN-free therapy, or quad alone (Quad 24) or quad plus 24-weeks of PegIFN alfa-2a/ribavirin (Quad 48). The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <25 IU/ml) 24 weeks after end-of-treatment (SVR24). Due to high relapse rates, genotype (G) 1a patients in IFN-free arms were offered additional PegIFN alfa-2a/ribavirin. RESULTS: Among prior partial responders, SVR24 rates were 46.2%, 51.0%, and 86.0%, in the IFN-free, Triple and Quad arms, respectively; among prior null responders, SVR24 rates were 45.5%, 80.5%, and 83.8% respectively. Relapse rates were lower and SVR24 rates higher in G1b-infected than G1a-infected patients. SVR24 rates in G1a and G1b patients randomized to Quad were 75.0% and 96.2%, respectively, in the partial Quad arm, and 68.1% and 100%, respectively, in the null Quad 24 arm. Treatment failure was associated with resistance to danoprevir, but not to mericitabine, and was more common in G1a infected patients. Treatment was well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Danoprevir/r, mericitabine plus PegIFN alfa-2a/ribavirin was well-tolerated and produced high overall SVR24 rates in prior partial and null responders to PegIFN alfa/ribavirin. In contrast, IFN-free regimens were associated with unacceptably high relapse rates.

Randomized controlled trial of danoprevir plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The combination of a hepatitis C virus (HCV) protease inhibitor, peginterferon, and ribavirin is the standard of care for patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. We report the efficacy and safety of response-guided therapy with danoprevir (a potent second-generation protease inhibitor), peginterferon alfa-2a (40 KD), and ribavirin in these patients. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients (N = 237) were randomly assigned to groups given 12 weeks of danoprevir (300 mg every 8 hours; 600 mg every 12 hours, and 900 mg every 12 hours) or placebo plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin, followed by peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin. Patients given danoprevir who had an extended rapid virologic response (eRVR4-20: HCV RNA <15 IU/mL during weeks 4-20) stopped therapy at week 24; those without an eRVR4-20 continued therapy to 48 weeks. Patients who were given placebo received 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin. The primary efficacy end point was sustained virologic response (SVR: HCV RNA <15 IU/mL after 24 weeks without treatment). RESULTS: Rates of SVR were higher among patients given danoprevir 300 mg (68%), 600 mg (85%), and 900 mg (76%) than placebo (42%) (95% confidence interval: 26%-59%). Seventy-nine percent of patients given danoprevir 600 mg had an eRVR4-20; among these, 96% had an SVR. Serious adverse events were reported in 7% to 8% of patients given danoprevir and 19% given placebo. Four patients given danoprevir (1 patient in the 600-mg group and 3 in the 900-mg group) had reversible, grade 4 increases in alanine aminotransferase, which led to early discontinuation of the 900-mg arm of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of danoprevir, peginterferon alfa-2a, and ribavirin leads to high rates of SVR in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection, but high doses of danoprevir can lead to grade 4 increases in alanine aminotransferase. Studies of lower doses of danoprevir with ritonavir, to reduce overall danoprevir exposure while maintaining potent antiviral activity, are underway; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT00963885.

Hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 does not affect viral response in patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2a (40KD) (PEGASYS) plus ribavirin (COPEGUS) for 16 or 24 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic steatosis is common in patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). The effect of steatosis on anti-HCV therapy efficacy is unclear. METHODS: We studied host and viral factors associated with steatosis and the effect of steatosis on treatment efficacy using the database of a large prospective trial in patients with HCV genotypes 2 and 3. RESULTS: Out of 885 patients assessed for steatosis, a total of 614 patients or 69% had steatosis. Patients with genotype 3 were more likely to have steatosis than those with genotype 2 (79 vs. 59%, P<0.001). Using the logistic regression model, steatosis was associated with genotype 3 (P<0.0001), older age (P=0.0025), heavier weight (P<0.0001), higher HCV RNA (P<0.0001), and higher ALT levels (P=0.015). By univariate analysis, steatosis was associated with lower sustained virological response (SVR) in patients with genotype 3, but not in patients with genotype 2. When all factors associated with steatosis and SVR were evaluated by logistic regression analysis; genotype, age, bodyweight, histological diagnosis, ALT quotient, baseline HCV RNA and treatment duration were associated with the probability of SVR, but gender, race and steatosis were not. Further analysis showed that steatosis remained a non-significant factor while baseline viral load was significantly associated with the probability of an SVR. CONCLUSIONS: Steatosis did not influence the efficacy of treatment in our study population. Baseline viral load is a confounding factor, particularly in patients infected with genotype 3 and once baseline viral load was accounted for, the association between steatosis and SVR was not relevant.