Improvement of differential diagnosis of lung cancer by use of multiple protein tumor marker combinations.

BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in hospitalized patients is crucial for appropriate treatment choice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STMs) and their combinations for the differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC subtypes. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2003, 10 established STMs were assessed retrospectively in 311 patients with NSCLC, 128 with SCLC prior systemic first-line therapy and 51 controls with benign lung diseases (BLD), by automatized electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technology. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of both individual and multiple STMs with corresponding sensitivities at 90% specificity. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD guidelines) were followed. RESULTS: CYFRA 21-1 (cytokeratin-19 fragment), CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) and NSE (neuron specific enolase) were significantly higher in all lung cancers vs BLD, reaching AUCs of 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.87), 0.78 (0.73-0.84), and 0.88 (0.84-0.93), respectively. By the three marker combination, the discrimination between benign and all malignant cases was improved resulting in an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.96). In NSCLC vs. BLD, CYFRA 21-1, CEA and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), 0.80 (0.74-0.85), and 0.85 (0.79-0.91). The three marker combination also improved the AUC: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89-0.96). In SCLC vs. BLD, ProGRP (pro-gastrin-releasing peptide) and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively, and slightly improved AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) when in combination. Finally, discrimination between SCLC and NSCLC was possible by ProGRP (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.81-0.91), NSE (AUC 0.83; 0.78-0.88) and CYFRA 21-1 (AUC 0.69; 0.64-0.75) and by the combination of the 3 STMs (AUC 0.93; 0.91-0.96), with a sensitivity of 88% at 90% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the power of STM combinations for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer from benign lesions and between histological lung cancer subtypes.

Lack of clinical utility of serum macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) for monitoring therapy response and estimating prognosis in advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major burden to global health and is still among the most frequent and most lethal malignant diseases. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in a variety of processes including tumorigenesis, formation of a tumor microenvironment and metastasis. It is therefore a potential prognostic biomarker in malignant diseases. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the applicability of MIF in serum samples as a biomarker in lung cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective approach, we analyzed the sera of 79 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 14 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) before the start of chemotherapy, as well as before the second and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively. Serum MIF levels were measured using a sandwich immunoassay with a sulfo-tag-labelled detection antibody, while pro-gastrin releasing peptide (proGRP) levels were determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: No difference in serum MIF levels between responders and non-responders to chemotherapy was observed at all time points, while proGRP levels were significantly lower in responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.012). No differences in biomarker levels depending on the histopathological classification of NSCLC patients was found. Moreover, in ROC curve analyses MIF was not able to distinguish between responders and non-responders to therapy. proGRP could differentiate between responders and non-responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) with sensitivities of 43% at 90% and 95% specificity, respectively. Likewise, proGRP yielded significantly longer survival times of patients with low proGRP concentrations before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) in Kaplan-Meier analyses, yet MIF showed no significant differences in survival times at all time points. Comparison with the biomarkers CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the same cohort showed that these established biomarkers clearly performed superior to MIF and proGRP. CONCLUSIONS: From the present results, there is no indication that serum MIF may serve as a biomarker in prognosis and monitoring of response to therapy in lung cancer. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the inclusion of a larger NSCLC and a smaller SCLC subgroup, the classical chemotherapeutic treatment, the use of a non-diagnostic immunoassay (RUO-test) for MIF measurement and the lack of a validation cohort. Strengths of the study are its highly standardized procedures concerning sample collection, preanalytic treatment, measurements and quality control of the laboratory assays.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Parsatuzumab (Anti-EGFL7) or Placebo in Combination with Carboplatin, Paclitaxel, and Bevacizumab for First-Line Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The lack of efficacy associated with anti-EGFL7 combined with standard bevacizumab and chemotherapy in this phase II trial in non-small cell lung carcinoma is consistent with the lack of benefit observed in colorectal carcinoma, highlighting the challenge of enhancing the efficacy of VEGF inhibition in unselected populations.Future efforts with agents like anti-EGFL7 should be guided by advances in pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents. BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor-like domain 7 (EGFL7) is an extracellular matrix-associated protein that is upregulated during angiogenesis and supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of the anti-EGFL7 antibody, parsatuzumab, in combination with bevacizumab plus platinum-based therapy for advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 104) were randomized to either placebo or parsatuzumab (600 mg) in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and carboplatin/paclitaxel, administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered for up to six cycles. Bevacizumab and parsatuzumab/placebo were administered for a maximum of 24 months. RESULTS: The progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.8; p = .047). The median PFS was 6.7 months for the parsatuzumab arm versus 8.1 months for the placebo arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5-2.2; p = .847). The objective response rate (ORR) was 29% in the parsatuzumab arm and 56% in the placebo arm. Overall safety and tolerability were consistent with the established toxicity profile of bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line NS-NSCLC.

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.

Docetaxel plus nintedanib versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (LUME-Lung 1): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients from 211 centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2-21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00805194. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8-11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months [95% CI 2·9-3·9] vs 2·7 months [2·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·68-0·92], p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8-36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months [95% CI 8·5-12·6] vs 7·9 months [6·7-9·1]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·92], p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months [95% CI 10·6-15·1] vs 10·3 months [95% CI 8·6-12·2]; HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·70-0·99], p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months [95% CI 8·8-11·2] vs 9·1 months [8·4-10·4]; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83-1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 [6·6%] of 652 vs 17 [2·6%] of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 [7·8%] vs six [0·9%]), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 [3·4%] vs three [0·5%]). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three). INTERPRETATION: Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced-stage, previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1009): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-EGFR family tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Findings from a phase 2 study in non-small cell lung cancer showed favourable efficacy for dacomitinib compared with erlotinib. We aimed to compare dacomitinib with erlotinib in a phase 3 study. METHODS: In a randomised, multicentre, double-blind phase 3 trial in 134 centres in 23 countries, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, progression after one or two previous regimens of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and presence of measurable disease. We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to dacomitinib (45 mg/day) or erlotinib (150 mg/day) with matching placebo. Treatment allocation was masked to the investigator, patient, and study funder. Randomisation was stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), ethnic origin (Asian vs non-Asian and Indian sub-continent), performance status (0-1 vs 2), and smoking status (never-smoker vs ever-smoker). The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival per independent review for all randomly assigned patients, and for all randomly assigned patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. The study has completed accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01360554. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2011, and March 12, 2013, we enrolled 878 patients and randomly assigned 439 to dacomitinib (256 KRAS wild type) and 439 (263 KRAS wild type) to erlotinib. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·9-2·8) in both the dacomitinib group and the erlotinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·941, 95% CI 0·802-1·104, one-sided log-rank p=0·229). For patients with wild-type KRAS, median progression-free survival was 2·6 months for dacomitinib (95% CI 1·9-2·9) and erlotinib (95% CI 1·9-3·0; stratified HR 1·022, 95% CI 0·834-1·253, one-sided p=0·587). In patients who received at least one dose of study drug, the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (47 [11%] patients in the dacomitinib group vs ten [2%] patients in the erlotinib group), rash (29 [7%] vs 12 [3%]), and stomatitis (15 [3%] vs two [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 52 (12%) patients receiving dacomitinib and 40 (9%) patients receiving erlotinib. INTERPRETATION: Irreversible EGFR inhibition with dacomitinib was not superior to erlotinib in an unselected patient population with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer or in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Further study of irreversible EGFR inhibitors should be restricted to patients with activating EGFR mutations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Randomized phase II study of three doses of the integrin inhibitor cilengitide versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This multicenter, open-label, phase II study was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of cilengitide (EMD 121974), a selective inhibitor of the cell-surface integrins αVß3 and αVß5, with that of docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 140) with advanced NSCLC who had failed first-line chemotherapy were randomized to cilengitide 240, 400, or 600 mg/m(2) twice weekly, or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for eight cycles. Non-progressing patients could continue cilengitide for up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). No statistical tests were performed since the study was exploratory in nature and the number of patients enrolled was relatively small. RESULTS: Median PFS was 54, 63, 63, and 67 days for cilengitide 240, 400, and 600 mg/m(2), and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), respectively. One-year survival rates were 13 %, 13 %, 29 %, and 27 %, respectively. The response rate (partial response only) with docetaxel was 15 %. No responses were reported in any cilengitide arm. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events in the docetaxel group were leukopenia and neutropenia (experienced by 13 % of patients). Hematologic toxicity of this severity did not occur in cilengitide-treated patients. CONCLUSION: With the highest dose of cilengitide (600 mg/m(2)), median PFS and 1-year survival were similar to those in patients treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and there were fewer grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events.

EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from the phase 3 First-Line ErbituX in lung cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·871, 95% CI 0·762-0·996; p=0·044) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To define patients benefiting most from cetuximab, we studied the association of tumour EGFR expression level with clinical outcome in FLEX study patients. METHODS: We used prospectively collected tumour EGFR expression data to generate an immunohistochemistry score for FLEX study patients on a continuous scale of 0-300. We used response data to select an outcome-based discriminatory threshold immunohistochemistry score for EGFR expression of 200. Treatment outcome was analysed in patients with low (immunohistochemistry score <200) and high (≥200) tumour EGFR expression. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. We analysed patients from the FLEX intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 1121 of 1125 (99·6%) patients from the FLEX study ITT population. High EGFR expression was scored for 345 (31%) evaluable patients and low for 776 (69%) patients. For patients in the high EGFR expression group, overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 12·0 months [95% CI 10·2-15·2] vs 9·6 months [7·6-10·6]; HR 0·73, 0·58-0·93; p=0·011), with no meaningful increase in side-effects. We recorded no corresponding survival benefit for patients in the low EGFR expression group (median 9·8 months [8·9-12·2] vs 10·3 months [9·2-11·5]; HR 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·88). A treatment interaction test assessing the difference in the HRs for overall survival between the EGFR expression groups suggested a predictive value for EGFR expression (p=0·044). INTERPRETATION: High EGFR expression is a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Assessment of EGFR expression could offer a personalised treatment approach in this setting. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

A phase II randomized study of cisplatin-pemetrexed plus either enzastaurin or placebo in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Enzastaurin is a serine/threonine kinase inhibitor that targets protein kinase C and AKT pathways. Enzastaurin and pemetrexed demonstrated synergy in preclinical studies. This trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of first-line enzastaurin plus cisplatin-pemetrexed in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A safety lead-in phase (n = 13) of enzastaurin 125 or 250 mg twice daily was added to cisplatin-pemetrexed. A subsequent randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study (n = 22) of the combination was conducted to evaluate efficacy. RESULTS: The combination was well tolerated and showed activity, with 7 (53.8%, 95% CI 26.7-80.9) confirmed partial responses and 2 stable diseases in 13 treated patients in the lead-in phase. However, the study was terminated early based on interim results from two phase II NSCLC studies of enzastaurin plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, which indicated no efficacy improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Enzastaurin and cisplatin-pemetrexed is tolerable with preliminary activity in patients with advanced NSCLC, but because of a lack of efficacy improvement in other phase II NSCLC studies, the study was terminated early.

First-cycle rash and survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving cetuximab in combination with first-line chemotherapy: a subgroup analysis of data from the FLEX phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase 3 First-Line Erbitux in Lung Cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main cetuximab-related side-effect was acne-like rash. Here, we assessed the association of this acne-like rash with clinical benefit. METHODS: We did a subgroup analysis of patients in the FLEX study, which enrolled patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumours expressed epidermal growth factor receptor. Our landmark analysis assessed if the development of acne-like rash in the first 21 days of treatment (first-cycle rash) was associated with clinical outcome, on the basis of patients in the intention-to-treat population alive on day 21. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: 518 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group-290 of whom had first-cycle rash-and 540 patients in the chemotherapy alone group were alive on day 21. Patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group with first-cycle rash had significantly prolonged overall survival compared with patients in the same treatment group without first-cycle rash (median 15·0 months [95% CI 12·8-16·4] vs 8·8 months [7·6-11·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·631 [0·515-0·774]; p<0·0001). Corresponding significant associations were also noted for progression-free survival (median 5·4 months [5·2-5·7] vs 4·3 months [4·1-5·3]; HR 0·741 [0·607-0·905]; p=0·0031) and response (rate 44·8% [39·0-50·8] vs 32·0% [26·0-38·5]; odds ratio 1·703 [1·186-2·448]; p=0·0039). Overall survival for patients without first-cycle rash was similar to that of patients that received chemotherapy alone (median 8·8 months [7·6-11·1] vs 10·3 months [9·6-11·3]; HR 1·085 [0·910-1·293]; p=0·36). The significant overall survival benefit for patients with first-cycle rash versus without was seen in all histology subgroups: adenocarcinoma (median 16·9 months, [14·1-20·6] vs 9·3 months [7·7-13·2]; HR 0·614 [0·453-0·832]; p=0·0015), squamous-cell carcinoma (median 13·2 months [10·6-16·0] vs 8·1 months [6·7-12·6]; HR 0·659 [0·472-0·921]; p=0·014), and carcinomas of other histology (median 12·6 months [9·2-16·4] vs 6·9 months [5·2-11·0]; HR 0·616 [0·392-0·966]; p=0·033). INTERPRETATION: First-cycle rash was associated with a better outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who received cisplatin and vinorelbine plus cetuximab as a first-line treatment. First-cycle rash might be a surrogate clinical marker that could be used to tailor cetuximab treatment for advanced NSCLC to those patients who would be most likely to derive a significant benefit.

Molecular biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from the phase 3 FLEX study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival, compared with cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in the first-line treatment of EGFR-expressing, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether candidate biomarkers were predictive for the efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in this setting. METHODS: Genomic DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour tissue of patients enrolled in the FLEX study was screened for KRAS codon 12 and 13 and EGFR kinase domain mutations with PCR-based assays. In FFPE tissue sections, EGFR copy number was assessed by dual-colour fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry. Treatment outcome was investigated according to biomarker status in all available samples from patients in the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. The FLEX study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: KRAS mutations were detected in 75 of 395 (19%) tumours and activating EGFR mutations in 64 of 436 (15%). EGFR copy number was scored as increased in 102 of 279 (37%) tumours and PTEN expression as negative in 107 of 303 (35%). Comparisons of treatment outcome between the two groups (chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs chemotherapy alone) according to biomarker status provided no indication that these biomarkers were of predictive value. Activating EGFR mutations were identified as indicators of good prognosis, with patients in both treatment groups whose tumours carried such mutations having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 17·5 months [95% CI 11·7-23·4] vs 8·5 months [7·1-10·8], hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [0·32-0·84], p=0·0063; chemotherapy alone: 23·8 months [15·2-not reached] vs 10·0 months [8·7-11·0], HR 0·35 [0·21-0·59], p<0·0001). Expression of PTEN seemed to be a potential indicator of good prognosis, with patients whose tumours expressed PTEN having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not, although this finding was not significant (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 11·4 months [8·6-13·6] vs 6·8 months [5·9-12·7], HR 0·80 [0·55-1·16], p=0·24; chemotherapy alone: 11·0 months [9·2-12·6] vs 9·3 months [7·6-11·9], HR 0·77 [0·54-1·10], p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: The efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC seems to be independent of each of the biomarkers assessed. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Soluble High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) Is a Promising Biomarker for Prediction of Therapy Response and Prognosis in Advanced Lung Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: High mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) is known for its significant elevation in a multitude of tumors and benign diseases. In this study, we investigated the relevance of soluble HMGB1 for the prediction and monitoring of therapy response as well as the estimation of prognosis in advanced lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, HMGB1 levels were assessed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the sera of 96 patients with advanced lung cancer (79 non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC); 14 small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), 3 Mesothelioma) prior to cycles 1, 2, and 3 of chemotherapy and correlated with radiological therapy response after 2 and 4 cycles as well as with overall survival. In addition, HMGB1 was compared with established tumor markers cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and neuron specific enolase (NSE). RESULTS: While pretherapeutic HMGB1 levels were not predictive or prognostically relevant in NSCLC patients, HMGB1 values prior to cycles 2 and 3 as well as kinetics from cycle 1 to 2 discriminated significantly between patients with good (remission and stable disease) and poor response (progression). Performance of HMGB1 in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of NSCLC patients, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.690 at cycle 2 and 0.794 at cycle 3 as well as sensitivities of 34.4% and 37.5%, respectively, for progression at 90% specificity, was comparable with the best tumor-associated antigen CYFRA 21-1 (AUCs 0.719 and 0.799; sensitivities of 37.5% and 41.7%, respectively). Furthermore, high concentrations of HMGB1 at cycles 2 and 3 were associated with shorter overall survival in NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Soluble HMGB1 is a promising biomarker for prediction of therapy response and prognosis in advanced NSCLC patients.

Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has the potential to increase survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We therefore compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In a multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (>or=18 years) with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chemotherapy plus cetuximab or just chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles. Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m(2) over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity had occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: Between October, 2004, and January, 2006, 1125 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n=557) or chemotherapy alone (n=568). Patients given chemotherapy plus cetuximab survived longer than those in the chemotherapy-alone group (median 11.3 months vs 10.1 months; hazard ratio for death 0.871 [95% CI 0.762-0.996]; p=0.044). The main cetuximab-related adverse event was acne-like rash (57 [10%] of 548, grade 3). INTERPRETATION: Addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy represents a new treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Nucleosomes and CYFRA 21-1 indicate tumor response after one cycle of chemotherapy in recurrent non-small cell lung cancer.

The increasing panel of systemic therapies enables the individual management of cancer patients, even in advanced stages. However, diagnostic tools indicating early the efficacy of therapy are still needed. In prospectively collected sera of 161 patients with recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving second-line chemotherapy, the courses of nucleosomes, cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) were investigated and correlated with therapy response. At high specificity for detection of progressive disease, most sensitive biomarkers were identified and included in a combination model. High levels and insufficient decreases of nucleosomes and CYFRA 21-1 during the first cycle of therapy indicated poor outcome. Combination of nucleosome concentrations at day 8 and CYFRA 21-1 before start of the second cycle enabled the early detection of progressive disease with a sensitivity of 34.4% at 95% specificity (AUC 0.79) prior to imaging techniques. When cutoffs were fixed at the 90th percentile of responding patients, the combination model achieved sensitivities of 19% at 100% specificity and of 52% at 88% specificity. Thus, nucleosomes and CYFRA 21-1 showed to be valuable for the individual management of patients with recurrent NSCLC.

Nucleosomes, ProGRP, NSE, CYFRA 21-1, and CEA in monitoring first-line chemotherapy of small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Besides new therapeutic drugs, effective diagnostic tools indicating early the efficacy of therapy are required to improve the individual management of patients with nonoperable cancer diseases. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In prospectively collected sera of 128 patients with newly diagnosed small cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy, the courses of nucleosomes, progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1), and carcinoembryonic antigen were investigated and correlated with therapy response objectified by computed tomography before start of the third treatment course. RESULTS: In univariate analyses, high levels and insufficient decreases of nucleosomes, ProGRP, NSE, and CYFRA 21-1 during the first and second cycles of therapy correlated with poor outcome. Insufficient response to therapy was most efficiently indicated by the baseline values of nucleosomes, ProGRP, and CYFRA 21-1 before the second therapy cycle reaching areas under the curve (AUC) of 81.8%, 71.3%, and 74.9% in receiver operating characteristic curves, respectively. Combinations of nucleosomes with ProGRP (AUC 84.1%), CYFRA 21-1 (AUC 82.5%), and NSE (AUC 83.6%) further improved the diagnostic power in the high specificity range and yielded sensitivities of 47.1%, 35.3%, and 35.3% at 95% specificity, respectively. In multivariate analyses, including clinical and biochemical variables, only performance score and nucleosomes before cycle 2 were found to independently indicate therapy response. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical markers specifically identified patients with insufficient therapy response at the early treatment phase and showed to be valuable for diseases management of small cell lung cancer.