Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. INTERPRETATION: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. FUNDING: Novocure.

Changes in the Heart Rate of Sniffer Dogs Trained for Detection of Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung carcinoma is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. At present, unfortunately, there are no markers that would allow early identification of this tumor in the preclinical or early clinical stage. The use of sniffer dogs has been reported to show some promise in early diagnosis of this type of cancer Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the possibility of utilizing changes in the heart rate of sniffer dogs (which increases when finding a positive sample) in tumor detection. METHODS: This double-blinded pilot study included two sniffer dogs. A chest strap was fastened on the dog's chests for heart rate monitoring while they were examining samples and heart rate was recorded. Test parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) were then calculated, evaluating performances based on (i) the dog's indications according to their training and (ii) the changes in their heart rates. RESULTS: Calculation according to the dog's indications revealed an overall sensitivity of 95.2% accompanied by a specificity of 81.8%, a PPV of 93.7%, and an NPV of 85.7%, respectively. These results were not significantly different from those evaluated by heart rate; heart rate monitoring was, however, burdened with a relatively high proportion of invalid experiments in which heart rate measurement failed. When the method of calculation was changed from rounds to individual samples, the test parameters further increased. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study confirmed the hypothesis that heart rate increases in trained sniffer dogs when encountering samples from tumor-positive patients but remains unchanged when only negative samples are present. The reliability of results based on heart rate increase is similar to that obtained by a dog's indications and, if the limitation represented by technical issues is overcome, it could serve as a valuable verification method.

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m2, and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. FUNDING: PharmaMar.

Olfactometric diagnosis of lung cancer by canine scent - A double-blinded study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most often diagnosed tumours in the world with the highest mortality. A major problem and reason for the high mortality from lung cancer is its diagnosis in the late stages. The main goal of preventing lung cancer deaths is early detection in the early stages and accurate diagnosis, which must be followed by targeted treatment. Nevertheless, even top diagnostic techniques do not have the same accuracy and sensitivity as a dog's sense of smell. METHODS: The study aims to present the results of olfactometric detection of lung cancer using the smell of dogs in unblinded, single-blinded and double-blinded studies. 115 serum samples or breath from patients with lung cancer and 101 samples from healthy people were used for the training. The group consisted of women and men of Indo-European origin, mostly from the Moravian-Silesian region in Czech Republic. Two dogs were selected for the study. RESULTS: In the case of tumor detection in the form of unblinded tests, Bugs had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 92%. Boolomo had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 81%. For single-blinded tests, Bugs had a sensitivity of 71%. The sensitivity of Boolomo was set at 90%. After meeting the sensitivity limit of 70%, dogs were included in the double-blinded studies. The highest accuracy was set at 68% for Bugs, 83% for Boolomo. CONCLUSION: When a tumour is diagnosed in the late stages, it is a great burden on both the health and economic systems of the state. Unfortunately, there is still no suitable screening test to detect the tumour at an early stage, so any other method of detection seems desirable. Trained dogs are used in many fields, why not also in medicine and the diagnosis of tumours?

Randomized Phase II Study of Paclitaxel plus Alisertib versus Paclitaxel plus Placebo as Second-Line Therapy for SCLC: Primary and Correlative Biomarker Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the Aurora A kinase inhibitor, alisertib, plus paclitaxel (henceforth referred to as alisertib/paclitaxel) as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this double-blind study, patients with relapsed or refractory SCLC were stratified by relapse type (sensitive versus resistant or refractory) and brain metastases and randomized 1:1 to alisertib/paclitaxel or placebo plus paclitaxel (henceforth referred to as placebo/paclitaxel) in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Associations of c-Myc expression in tumor tissue (prespecified) and genetic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (retrospective) with clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were enrolled (89 in each arm). The median PFS was 3.32 months with alisertib/paclitaxel versus 2.17 months with placebo/paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, 95% confidence limit [CI]: 0.557-1.067, p = 0.113 in the intent-to-treat population versus HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.509-0.985, p = 0.038 with corrected analysis applied). Among 140 patients with genetic alternations, patients with cell cycle regulator mutations (cyclin-dependent kinase 6 gene [CDK6], retinoblastoma-like 1 gene [RBL1], retinoblastoma-like 2 gene [RBL2], and retinoblastoma 1 gene [RB1]) had significantly improved PFS with alisertib/paclitaxel versus with placebo/paclitaxel (3.68 versus 1.80 months, respectively [HR = 0.395, 95% CI: 0.239-0.654, p = 0.0003]), and overall survival (7.20 versus 4.47 months, respectively [HR = 0.427, 95% CI: 0.259-0.704, p = 0.00085]). A subset of patients with c-Myc expression showed significantly improved PFS with alisertib/paclitaxel. The incidence of grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events was 67% (58 patients) with alisertib/paclitaxel versus 22% (25 patients) with placebo/paclitaxel. Twelve patients (14%) versus 11 (12%) died on study, including four versus zero treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy signals were seen with alisertib/paclitaxel in relapsed or refractory SCLC. c-Myc expression and mutations in cell cycle regulators may be potential predictive biomarkers of alisertib efficacy; further prospective validations are warranted.

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin in stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized, multicenter, phase III trial was conducted to compare the tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) in chemonaive patients with stage IIIb and IV non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Secondary objectives were to evaluate response, duration of response, time to progressive disease (TTPD), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were required to have stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, no previous chemotherapy, Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, bidimensionally measurable disease, and age 18-75 years. Randomized patients in both arms were given gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, followed on day 1 by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (GP) or carboplatin AUC=5 (GC). Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Enrolled patients in both arms, 87 in GP and 89 in GC, were well balanced for demographics and disease characteristics. Dose intensity was 93.8 and 92.7% for gemcitabine in GP/GC arms, respectively; 97.7% for cisplatin and 99.9% for carboplatin. Patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity excluding nausea, vomiting or alopecia, were 44% in GP arm and 54% in GC arm. The only significantly different toxicities were, nausea and vomiting in GP and thrombocytopenia in GC group. The overall response rates, median TTPD, response duration and survival were, 41/29%, 5.87/4.75 months, 7.48/5.15 months, and 8.75/7.97 months for GP and GC arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: GP and GC are effective and feasible regimens for advanced NSCLC, and are comparable in efficacy and toxicity. GC may offer acceptable option to patients with advanced NSCLC, especially those who are unable to receive cisplatin.

Patient attitudes towards chemotherapy and survival: a prospective observational study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

This multicenter, non-interventional, prospective, observational study aimed to determine whether patients' attitude to chemotherapy is an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are treated with gemcitabine-platinum. Chemonaive patients (n=1895) with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy were treated with a combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin/carboplatin and followed for a maximum of 18 months. Patients' attitude to treatment was measured on a 5-point scale and responses were used to assign patients to one of the three need categories: A, maximum extension of survival with the acceptance of high toxicity (60.0% of patients); B, maximum extension of survival only if coupled with normal lifestyle (26.1%); C, relief of symptoms (13.8%). Median survival varied significantly among the need categories (A=13.00 months, B=15.70 months, C=15.33 months; log-rank test P=0.0415). Patient attitude to treatment (need categories) was not a significant prognostic factor for survival after adjusting for known prognostic factors (P=0.0503). After adjusting for baseline differences, patients in this study had a significantly lower risk of death than patients in three randomized trials (hazard ratio 0.879; 95% confidence interval: 0.775, 0.998; P=0.0458). In conclusion, in this observational study, patient attitude to chemotherapy was not an independent prognostic factor of survival.

Multicenter phase II trial of YM155, a small-molecule suppressor of survivin, in patients with advanced, refractory, non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the antitumor activity and safety of YM155, a novel, small-molecule suppressor of survivin, as single-agent therapy in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC who had experienced treatment failure during one or two prior chemotherapy regimens (at least one of which was platinum based) received YM155 as a continuous intravenous infusion (4.8 mg/m(2)/d) over 168 hours followed by observation for 14 days in 21-day treatment cycles. The primary end point was objective tumor response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included duration of stable disease (SD), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and pharmacokinetic profiles, and pharmacodynamic evaluations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received YM155. Two patients achieved a confirmed partial response, with an ORR of 5.4% (95% CI, 0.7% to 18.2%). An additional 14 patients (37.8%) achieved SD resulting in a disease control rate of 43.2% (95% CI, 27.1% to 60.5%). Median duration of PFS was 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8 months). Median duration of OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 4 to 12.2 months), with a 1-year survival rate of 35.1%. Treatment with YM155 was well tolerated with the majority of treatment discontinuations not treatment related. CONCLUSION: YM155 exhibited modest single-agent activity in patients with refractory, advanced NSCLC. A favorable safety/tolerability profile was reported. Further evaluation of YM155 in combination with chemotherapy and other targeted agents may be warranted.

Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial.

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.

Randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study of vandetanib plus docetaxel in previously treated non small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor kinase activity. The activity of vandetanib plus docetaxel was assessed in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This two-part study comprised an open-label run-in phase and a double-blind randomized phase. Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC after failure of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective of the randomized phase was to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving vandetanib (100 or 300 mg/d) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion every 21 days) versus placebo plus docetaxel. The study was designed to have more than 75% power to detect 50% prolongation at a one-sided significance level of P < .20. Secondary objectives included objective response rate, overall survival, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: In the randomized phase (n = 127), median PFS was 18.7 weeks for vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel (n = 42; hazard ratio v docetaxel = 0.64; one-sided P = .037); 17.0 weeks for vandetanib 300 mg plus docetaxel (n = 44; hazard ratio v docetaxel = 0.83; one-sided P = .231); and 12 weeks for docetaxel (n = 41). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival among the three treatment arms. Common adverse events included diarrhea, rash, and asymptomatic prolongation of corrected QT (QTC) interval. CONCLUSION: The primary objective was achieved, with vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel demonstrating a significant prolongation of PFS compared with docetaxel in relation to the prespecified significance level. On the basis of these encouraging data, phase III evaluation of vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel in second-line NSCLC has been initiated.