Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in "Special" NSCLC Populations: A Viable Approach?

Over the last decade, the therapeutic scenario for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has undergone a major paradigm shift. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown a meaningful clinical and survival improvement in different settings of the disease. However, the real benefit of this therapeutic approach remains controversial in selected NSCLC subsets, such as those of the elderly with active brain metastases or oncogene-addicted mutations. This is mainly due to the exclusion or underrepresentation of these patient subpopulations in most pivotal phase III studies; this precludes the generalization of ICI efficacy in this context. Moreover, no predictive biomarkers of ICI response exist that can help with patient selection for this therapeutic approach. Here, we critically summarize the current state of ICI efficacy in the most common "special" NSCLC subpopulations.

Circulating Tumour Cells: Detection and Application in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the deadliest diseases worldwide. Tissue biopsy is the current gold standard for the diagnosis and molecular profiling of NSCLC. However, this approach presents some limitations due to inadequate tissue sampling, and intra- and intertumour heterogenicity. Liquid biopsy is a noninvasive method to determine cancer-related biomarkers in peripheral blood, and can be repeated at multiple timepoints. One of the most studied approaches to liquid biopsies is represented by circulating tumour cells (CTCs). Several studies have evaluated the prognostic and predictive role of CTCs in advanced NSCLC. Despite the limitations of these studies, the results of the majority of studies seem to be concordant regarding the correlation between high CTC count and poor prognosis in patients with NSCLC. Similarly, the decrease of CTC count during treatment may represent an important predictive marker of sensitivity to therapy in advanced NSCLC. Furthermore, molecular characterization of CTCs can be used to provide information on tumour biology, and on the mechanisms involved in resistance to targeted treatment. This review will discuss the current status of the clinical utility of CTCs in patients with advanced NSCLC, highlighting their potential application to prognosis and to treatment decision making.

Heterogeneous Off-Target Effects of Ultra-Low Dose Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO) on Targetable Signaling Events in Lung Cancer In Vitro Models.

Targetable alterations in cancer offer novel opportunities to the drug discovery process. However, pre-clinical testing often requires solubilization of these drugs in cosolvents like dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Using a panel of cell lines commonly used for in vitro drug screening and pre-clinical testing, we explored the DMSO off-target effects on functional signaling networks, drug targets, and downstream substrates. Eight Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) cell lines were incubated with three concentrations of DMSO (0.0008%, 0.002%, and 0.004% v/v) over time. Expression and activation levels of 187 proteins, of which 137 were kinases and downstream substrates, were captured using the Reverse Phase Protein Array (RPPA). The DMSO effect was heterogeneous across cell lines and varied based on concentration, exposure time, and cell line. Of the 187 proteins measured, all were statistically different in at least one comparison at the highest DMSO concentration, followed by 99.5% and 98.9% at lower concentrations. Only 46% of the proteins were found to be statistically different in more than 5 cell lines, indicating heterogeneous response across models. These cell line specific alterations modulate response to in vitro drug screening. Ultra-low DMSO concentrations have broad and heterogeneous effects on targetable signaling proteins. Off-target effects need to be carefully evaluated in pre-clinical drug screening and testing.

Tumour Treating Fields in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (STELLAR): a multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) are a regional, antimitotic treatment for solid tumours, which is based on the delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields. The aim of the STELLAR study was to test the activity of TTFields delivered to the thorax in combination with systemic chemotherapy for the front-line treatment of patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: STELLAR was a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 12 European academic and non-academic sites (five in Italy, three in Poland, one in France, one in Belgium, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands) for treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for mesothelioma. Patients received continuous TTFields at a frequency of 150 kHz to the thorax and concomitant chemotherapy with intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1) plus intravenous platinum (either cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients not progressing after completion of chemotherapy received TTFields as maintenance treatment until progression, patient or physician decision, or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Survival analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least 1 day of TTFields treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397928. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2015 and March 21, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled in the study. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·4-16·6). Median overall survival was 18·2 months (95% CI 12·1-25·8). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (nine [11%] patients), neutropenia (seven [9%]), and thrombocytopenia (four [5%]). Skin reaction was the only adverse event associated with TTFields and was reported as grade 1-2 in 53 (66%) patients, and as grade 3 in four (5%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed encouraging overall survival results, with no increase in systemic toxicity. TTFields (150 kHz) delivered to the thorax concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum was an active and safe combination for front-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Further investigation in a randomised trial is warranted. FUNDING: Novocure.

Four-year survival with nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 clinical data has shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer overall survival with nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival. METHODS: We pooled data from four clinical studies of nivolumab in patients with previously treated NSCLC (CheckMate 017, 057, 063, and 003) to evaluate survival outcomes. Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included. Comparisons of nivolumab versus docetaxel included all randomised patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. We did landmark analyses by response status at 6 months to determine post-landmark survival outcomes. We excluded patients who did not have a radiographic tumour assessment at 6 months. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. FINDINGS: Across all four studies, 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (95% CI 11-17) for all patients (n=664), 19% (15-24) for those with at least 1% PD-L1 expression, and 11% (7-16) for those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression. In CheckMate 017 and 057, 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% CI 11-18) in patients treated with nivolumab, compared with 5% (3-7) in patients treated with docetaxel. Survival subsequent to response at 6 months on nivolumab or docetaxel was longer than after progressive disease at 6 months, with hazard ratios for overall survival of 0·18 (95% 0·12-0·27) for nivolumab and 0·43 (0·29-0·65) for docetaxel; for stable disease versus progressive disease, hazard ratios were 0·52 (0·37-0·71) for nivolumab and 0·80 (0·61-1·04) for docetaxel. Long-term data did not show any new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab achieved a greater duration of response compared with patients treated with docetaxel, which was associated with a long-term survival advantage. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Italian Cohort of Nivolumab Expanded Access Program in Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from a Real-World Population.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has shown a survival benefit compared with docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with previously treated advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a randomized phase III trial. The experiences of patients and physicians in routine clinical practice are often different from those in a controlled clinical trial setting. We present data from the entire Italian cohort of patients with squamous NSCLC enrolled in a worldwide nivolumab NSCLC expanded access program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pretreated advanced squamous NSCLC received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 24 months. Safety was monitored throughout; efficacy data collected included objective tumor response, date of progression, and survival information. RESULTS: The Italian cohort comprised 371 patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. In the overall population, the objective response rate (ORR) was 18%, the disease control rate (DCR) was 47%, and median overall survival (OS) was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval 6.2-9.6). In subgroup analyses, ORR, DCR, and median OS were, respectively, 17%, 48%, and 9.1 months in patients previously treated with two or more lines of therapy (n = 209) and 8%, 40%, and 10.0 months in patients treated beyond disease progression (n = 65). In the overall population, the rate of any-grade and grade 3-4 adverse events was 29% and 6%, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 14 patients (5%). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: To date, this report represents the most extensive clinical experience with nivolumab in advanced squamous NSCLC in current practice outside the controlled clinical trial setting. These data suggest that the efficacy and safety profiles of nivolumab in a broad, real-world setting are consistent with those obtained in clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab is approved in the U.S. and Europe for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of prior platinum-based chemotherapy. In this cohort of Italian patients with previously treated, advanced squamous NSCLC treated in a real-world setting as part of the nivolumab expanded access program, the efficacy and safety of nivolumab was consistent with that previously reported in nivolumab clinical trials.

Cumulative incidence rates for CNS and non-CNS progression in two phase II studies of alectinib in ALK-positive NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS progression in alectinib-treated patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to determine the extent to which alectinib may treat or control CNS disease. METHODS: Patients with crizotinib-pretreated locally advanced or metastatic disease received alectinib 600 mg orally twice daily in two phase II trials. All patients underwent baseline imaging and regular centrally reviewed scans. RESULTS: At 24 months, the CIR for CNS progression was lower in patients without vs with baseline CNS metastases (8.0 vs 43.9%). Patients with baseline CNS disease and prior radiotherapy had a higher CIR of CNS progression than radiotherapy-naive patients (50.5 vs 27.4%) and a lower CIR of non-CNS progression (25.8 vs 42.5%). Adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred in 5.9% and 6.7% of patients with and without baseline CNS metastases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates a potential role for alectinib in controlling and preventing CNS metastases.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

Nivolumab in never-smokers with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: Results from the Italian cohort of an expanded access program.

OBJECTIVES:: Never-smokers may be a distinct subgroup among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, appearing to benefit less from immunotherapy than smokers. We report results from never-smokers enrolled in the Italian cohort of the nivolumab expanded access program in pre-treated patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for ≤24 months) was available on physician request. Efficacy data included objective tumor response, date of progression, and survival information. Safety was monitored. RESULTS:: Overall, 371 patients received at least one dose of nivolumab, including 31 never-smokers (8%). Objective response rate, disease-control rate, and median overall survival were 23%, 45%, and 12.1 months (95% confidence interval: 3.7-20.4), respectively, in never-smokers, and 18%, 47%, and 7.9 months (95% confidence interval: 6.2-9.6), respectively, in the overall expanded access program population. Any-grade and grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 12 (39%) and 3 (10%) never-smokers, respectively, and in 109 (29%) and 21 (6%) patients, respectively, in the overall expanded access program population. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in non-smokers were increased transaminases (n = 2; 6%) and diarrhea (n = 1; 3%). Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 4 non-smokers (17%) and in 26 patients (9%) overall. CONCLUSION:: Pre-treated never-smokers with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in this Italian expanded access program demonstrated efficacy and safety that were consistent with those in the overall expanded access program population and clinical trials. These results suggest that a proportion of never-smoker patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer may be responsive to immunotherapy. Other factors, such as the tumor mutational load and the status of programmed death-ligand 1, anaplastic lymphoma kinase, and epidermal growth factor receptor, might play a potential key role.

Ceritinib versus chemotherapy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer previously given chemotherapy and crizotinib (ASCEND-5): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK-rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking [block size of four]; stratified by WHO performance status [0 vs 1-2] and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 [investigator choice], every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828112, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 [34%] to pemetrexed, 73 [63%] to docetaxel, and three [3%] discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5-21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months [95% CI 4·1-6·9] for ceritinib vs 1·6 months [1·4-2·8] for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 [0·36-0·67]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 [11%] in the ceritinib group vs 12 [11%] in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 [21%] of 115 vs two [2%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 [21%] vs one [1%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 [14%] vs one [1%] in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one [7%] cerebrovascular accident and one [7%] respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Influence of chemotherapeutic drug-related gene polymorphisms on toxicity and survival of early breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether GSTT1 ("null" allele), GSTM1 ("null"allele), GSTP1 (A313G), RFC1 (G80A), MTHFR (C677T), TS (2R/3R) polymorphisms were associated with toxicity and survival in patients with early breast cancer (EBC) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). METHODS: This prospective trial included patients with stage I-III BC subjected to CT with CMF or FEC regimens. PCR-RFLP was performed for MTHFR, RFC1 and GSTP1, while PCR for TS, GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes. RESULTS: Among the 244 patients consecutively enrolled, 48.7% were treated with FEC and 51.3% with CMF. Patients with TS2R/3R genotype showed less frequently severe neutropenia (G3/G4) than those with TS2R/2R and 3R/3R genotype (p = 0.038). Patients with MTHFRCT genotype had a higher probability of developing severe neutropenia than those with MTHFR CC genotype (p = 0.043). Patients with RFC1GG or GSTT1-null genotype or their combination (GSTT1-null/RFC1GG) were significantly associated with a shorter disease free survival (DFS) (p = 0.009, p = 0.053, p = 0.003, respectively) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.036, p = 0.015, p = 0.005, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association of RFC1GG genotype with a shorter DFS (p = 0.018) and of GSTT1-null genotype of a worse OS (p = 0.003), as well as for the combined genotypes GSTT1-null/RFC1GG, (DFS: p = 0.004 and OS: p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that TS2R/2R and 3R/3R or MTHFR CT genotypes have a potential role in identifying patients with greater risk of toxicity to CMF/FEC and that RFC1 GG and GSTT1-null genotypes alone or in combination could be important markers in predicting clinical outcome in EBC patients.

Selumetinib Plus Docetaxel Compared With Docetaxel Alone and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With KRAS-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The SELECT-1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are no specifically approved targeted therapies for the most common genomically defined subset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), KRAS-mutant lung cancer. Objective: To compare efficacy of the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor selumetinib + docetaxel with docetaxel alone as a second-line therapy for advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational, randomized clinical trial conducted at 202 sites across 25 countries from October 2013 through January 2016. Of 3323 patients with advanced NSCLC and disease progression following first-line anticancer therapy tested for a KRAS mutation, 866 were enrolled and 510 randomized. Primary reason for exclusion was ineligibility. The data cutoff date for analysis was June 7, 2016. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1; 254 to receive selumetinib + docetaxel and 256 to receive placebo + docetaxel. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was investigator assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, effects on disease-related symptoms, safety, and tolerability. Results: Of 510 randomized patients (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 8.3]; women, 207 [41%]), 505 patients (99%) received treatment and completed the study (251 received selumetinib + docetaxel; 254 received placebo + docetaxel). At the time of data cutoff, 447 patients (88%) had experienced a progression event and 346 deaths (68%) had occurred. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-5.9) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 2.8 months (IQR, 1.4-5.5) with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 1.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.12]; P = .44). Median overall survival was 8.7 months (IQR, 3.6-16.8) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 7.9 months (IQR, 3.8-20.1) with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 0.9 months; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.30]; P = .64). Objective response rate was 20.1% with selumetinib + docetaxel and 13.7% with placebo + docetaxel (difference, 6.4%; odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.00-2.62]; P = .05). Median duration of response was 2.9 months (IQR, 1.7-4.8; 95% CI, 2.7-4.1) with selumetinib + docetaxel and 4.5 months (IQR, 2.3-7.3; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6) with placebo + docetaxel. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more frequent with selumetinib + docetaxel (169 adverse events [67%] for selumetinib + docetaxel vs 115 adverse events [45%] for placebo + docetaxel; difference, 22%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with previously treated advanced KRAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, addition of selumetinib to docetaxel did not improve progression-free survival compared with docetaxel alone. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01933932.

Osimertinib for pretreated EGFR Thr790Met-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (AURA2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib (AZD9291) is an oral, potent, irreversible EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor selective for EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor sensitising mutations, and the EGFR Thr790Met resistance mutation. We assessed the efficacy and safety of osimertinib in patients with EGFR Thr790Met-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who had progressed after previous therapy with an approved EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. METHODS: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm study (AURA2), patients aged at least 18 years with centrally confirmed EGFR Thr790Met-positive mutations, locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC who progressed on previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy received osimertinib 80 mg orally once daily; treatment could continue beyond progression if the investigator observed a clinical benefit. Patients with asymptomatic, stable CNS metastases not requiring steroids were allowed to enrol. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by blinded independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the evaluable for response analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of osimertinib and had measurable disease at baseline according to blinded independent central review). Other endpoints and safety were assessed in all patients receiving at least one osimertinib dose (full analysis set). The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02094261. FINDINGS: Between May 20, 2014, and Sept 12, 2014, 472 patients were screened, of whom 210 started osimertinib treatment between June 13, 2014, and Oct 27, 2014; 11 patients were excluded from the evaluable for response analysis set (n=199) due to absence of measurable disease at baseline by blinded independent central review. At data cutoff (Nov 1, 2015), 122 (58%) patients remained on treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 13·0 months (IQR 7·6-14·2). 140 (70%; 95% CI 64-77) of 199 patients achieved an objective response by blinded independent central review: confirmed complete responses were achieved in six (3%) patients and partial responses were achieved in 134 (67%) patients. The most common all-causality grade 3 and 4 adverse events were pulmonary embolism (seven [3%]), prolonged electrocardiogram QT (five [2%]), decreased neutrophil count (four [2%]), anaemia, dyspnoea, hyponatraemia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and thrombocytopenia (three [1%] each). Serious adverse events were reported in 52 (25%) patients, of which 11 (5%) were investigator assessed as possibly treatment-related to osimertinib. Seven deaths were due to adverse events; these were pneumonia (n=2), pneumonia aspiration (n=1), rectal haemorrhage (n=1), dyspnoea (n=1), failure to thrive (n=1), and interstitial lung disease (n=1). The only fatal event assessed as possibly treatment-related by the investigator was due to interstitial lung disease. INTERPRETATION: Osimertinib showed clinical activity with manageable side-effects in patients with EGFR Thr790Met-positive NSCLC. Therefore, osimertinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with EGFR Thr790Met-positive disease who have progressed on an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In single-group studies, chromosomal rearrangements of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK) have been associated with marked clinical responses to crizotinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting ALK. Whether crizotinib is superior to standard chemotherapy with respect to efficacy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, open-label trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 347 patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer who had received one prior platinum-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral treatment with crizotinib (250 mg) twice daily or intravenous chemotherapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or docetaxel (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to crizotinib as part of a separate study. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months in the crizotinib group and 3.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.64; P<0.001). The response rates were 65% (95% CI, 58 to 72) with crizotinib, as compared with 20% (95% CI, 14 to 26) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An interim analysis of overall survival showed no significant improvement with crizotinib as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death in the crizotinib group, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.54; P=0.54). Common adverse events associated with crizotinib were visual disorder, gastrointestinal side effects, and elevated liver aminotransferase levels, whereas common adverse events with chemotherapy were fatigue, alopecia, and dyspnea. Patients reported greater reductions in symptoms of lung cancer and greater improvement in global quality of life with crizotinib than with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib is superior to standard chemotherapy in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with ALK rearrangement. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00932893.).

Alectinib's activity against CNS metastases from ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: a single institution case series.

In the present study we assessed the activity of the next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (-TKI) alectinib, in patients with ALK-postive, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and central nervous system (CNS) metastases. NSCLCs with ALK-positive disease, as assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization, and CNS metastases were treated with alectinib 600 mg BID. Included patients were followed prospectively in order to evaluate the efficacy of the drug, with particular emphasis on activity in the CNS. Eleven consecutive patients were enrolled. The majority of them were pretreated with crizotinib (n = 10, 90.9 %), and cranial radiotherapy (n = 8, 72.7 %). Six of the seven patients with measurable CNS disease experienced a CNS response, including three patients who were naïve for cranial radiation. Median duration of response was 8 months. For the whole population, median CNS-progression-free survival (-PFS), systemic-PFS, overall-PFS, overall survival, and 1-year survival were 8, 11, 8, 13 months, and 31.1 %, respectively. Two patients experiencing a CNS response were assessed for alectinib's concentrations in serum and cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF), and showed a CSF-to-serum ratio ranging from 0.001 to 0.003 ng/mL. Alectinib is highly active against CNS metastases from ALK-positive NSCLCs, irrespective of prior treatment(s) with ALK-TKI(s) and/or cranial radiotherapy. The low CSF-to-serum ratio of alectinib suggests that measuring the concentrations of the drug in the CSF may not be a reliable surrogate of its distribution into the CNS.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Gene mutation analysis in EGFR wild type NSCLC responsive to erlotinib: are there features to guide patient selection?

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are very efficacious in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutations. However, about 10% of EGFR wild type (wt) patients respond to TKI, with unknown molecular mechanisms of sensitivity. We considered a case series of 34 EGFR wt NSCLC patients responsive to erlotinib after at least one line of therapy. Responsive patients were matched with an equal number of non-responsive EGFR wt patients. A panel of 26 genes, for a total of 214 somatic mutations, was analyzed by MassARRAY® System (Sequenom, San Diego, CA, USA). A 15% KRAS mutation was observed in both groups, with a prevalence of G12C in non-responders (80% vs. 40% in responders). NOTCH1, p53 and EGFR-resistance-related mutations were found more frequently in non-responders, whereas EGFR-sensitizing mutations and alterations in genes involved in proliferation pathways were more frequent in responders. In conclusion, our findings indicate that p53, NOTCH1 and exon 20 EGFR mutations seem to be related to TKI resistance. KRAS mutations do not appear to influence the TKI response, although G12C mutation is more frequent in non-responders. Finally, the use of highly sensitive methodologies could lead to the identification of under-represented EGFR mutations potentially associated with TKI sensitivity.

Selumetinib plus docetaxel for KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: No targeted therapies are available for KRAS-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib is an inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2, downstream of KRAS, with preclinical evidence of synergistic activity with docetaxel in KRAS-mutant cancers. We did a prospective, randomised, phase 2 trial to assess selumetinib plus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. METHODS: Eligible patients were older than 18 years of age; had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV KRAS-mutant NSCLC; had failed first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC; had WHO performance status of 0-1; had not received previous therapy with either a MEK inhibitor or docetaxel; and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21 day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21 day cycle). Randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and investigators, patients, data analysts, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed for all patients with confirmed KRAS mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00890825. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2009, and June 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 44 patients to receive selumetinib and docetaxel (selumetinib group) and 43 to receive placebo and docetaxel (placebo group). Of these, one patient in the selumetinib group and three in the placebo group were excluded from efficacy analyses because their tumours were not confirmed to be KRAS-mutation positive. Median overall survival was 9·4 months (6·8-13·6) in the selumetinib group and 5·2 months (95% CI 3·8-non-calculable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] for death 0·80, 80% CI 0·56-1·14; one-sided p=0·21). Median progression-free survival was 5·3 months (4·6-6·4) in the selumetinib group and 2·1 months (95% CI 1·4-3·7) in the placebo group (HR for progression 0·58, 80% CI 0·42-0·79; one-sided p=0·014). 16 (37%) patients in the selumetinib group and none in the placebo group had an objective response (p<0·0001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 36 (82%) patients in the selumetinib group and 28 (67%) patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (29 [67%] of 43 patients in the selumetinib group vs 23 [55%] of 42 patients in the placebo group), febrile neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group), dyspnoea (one [2%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs five [12%] of 42 in the placebo group), and asthenia (four [9%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Selumetinib plus docetaxel has promising efficacy, albeit with a higher number of adverse events than with docetaxel alone, in previously treated advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. These findings warrant further clinical investigation of selumetinib plus docetaxel in KRAS-mutant NSCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilisation of Italian Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

This study evaluated the economic burden of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients before and after the availability of an immuno-oncology (IO) regimen as a first-line (1L) treatment. Patients from 2014 to 2020 were categorized according to mutational status into mutation-positive and negative/unknown groups, which were further divided into pre-1L IO and post-1L IO sub-groups depending on the availability of pembrolizumab monotherapy in 1L. Healthcare costs and HCRU for a 1L treatment and overall follow-up were reported as the mean total and per-month cost per patient by groups. Of 644 patients, 125were mutation-positive and 519 negative/unknown (229 and 290 in pre- and post-1L IO, respectively). The mean total per-patient cost in 1L was lower in pre- (EUR 7804) and post-1L IO (EUR 19,301) than the mutation-positive group (EUR 45,247), persisting throughout overall disease follow-up. However, this difference was less when analyzing monthly costs. Therapy costs were the primary driver in 1L, while hospitalization costs rose during follow-up. In both mutation-positive and post-IO 1L groups, the 1L costs represented a significant portion (70.1% and 66.3%, respectively) of the total costs in the overall follow-up. Pembrolizumab introduction increased expenses but improved survival. Higher hospitalisation and emergency room occupation rates during follow-up reflected worsening clinical conditions of the negative/unknown group than the mutation-positive population.