Vemurafenib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with BRAFV600 and BRAFnonV600 mutations.

BACKGROUND: BRAF mutations occurring in 1%-5% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are therapeutic targets for these cancers but the impact of the exact mutation on clinical activity is unclear. The French National Cancer Institute (INCA) launched the AcSé vemurafenib trial to assess the efficacy and safety of vemurafenib in cancers with various BRAF mutations. We herein report the results of the NSCLC cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumour samples were screened for BRAF mutations in INCA-certified molecular genetic centres. Patients with BRAF-mutated tumours progressing after ≥1 line of treatment were proposed vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Between October 2014 and July 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the NSCLC cohort. The primary outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) assessed every 8 weeks (RECIST v1.1). A sequential Bayesian approach was planned with an inefficacy bound of 10% for ORR. If no early stopping occurred, the treatment was of interest if the estimated ORR was ≥30% with a 90% probability. Secondary outcomes were tolerance, response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 118 patients enrolled, 101 presented with a BRAFV600 mutation and 17 with BRAFnonV600 mutations; the median follow-up was 23.9 months. In the BRAFnonV600 cohort, no objective response was observed and this cohort was stopped. In the BRAFV600 cohort, 43/96 patients had objective responses. The mean Bayesian estimated success rate was 44.9% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 35.2%-54.8%]. The ORR had a 99.9% probability of being ≥30%. Median response duration was 6.4 months, median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.8-6.8), and OS was 10 months (95% CI 6.8-15.7). The vemurafenib safety profile was consistent with previous publications. CONCLUSION: Routine biomarker screening of NSCLC should include BRAFV600 mutations. Vemurafenib monotherapy is effective for treating patients with BRAFV600-mutated NSCLC but not those with BRAFnonV600 mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02304809.

How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies?

BACKGROUND: In the era of personalized medicine, molecularly targeted therapies (MTT) have modified the outcome of some cancer types. The price of tumor control needs to be balanced with toxicity since these new therapies are administered continuously for several months or sometimes for several years. For cytotoxic drugs, the incidence of adverse event (AE) was traditionally reported as frequency and intensity. This simple measure is not sufficient to capture the recurrent nature and duration of AE. This paper presents two methods to better describe the toxicity burden across the time: prevalence and Q-TWiST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Limitation of worst-grade method and advantages of prevalence and Q-TWiST in the analysis of toxicity were illustrated using data from a phase II trial and a hypothetically simulated clinical trial. RESULTS: Prevalence integrates the recurrent nature of AE. Using prevalence, it is possible to obtain a time profile of AE. Q-TWiST method evaluates the weighted time spent in each health state and also considers the recurrent nature of side-effects in order to assess the 'risk-benefit' ratio of a treatment. When interpreting Q-TWiST results, it is necessary to take into account overall survival and progression-free survival and to define a clinically relevant difference according to the setting. CONCLUSION: The two methods presented here capture different effects. They are helpful for physicians in their treatment choice (balance benefit risk), to counsel patients and to optimize supportive care. In order to ensure consistency and provide critical information required for medical decision-making, it is important to encourage the use of alternative statistical methods in the analysis of toxicities associated with MTT. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT00541008.

Circulating tumor cells and brain metastasis outcome in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: the LANDSCAPE trial.

BACKGROUND: Decrease of circulating tumor cells (CTC) during treatment is an independent prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We specifically evaluated the impact of CTC on brain metastasis outcome. METHODS: HER2-positive MBC with brain metastasis not previously treated with whole-brain radiotherapy received first-line combination of lapatinib and capecitabine in a phase II study. CTC were detected at baseline and day 21 (CellSearch). RESULTS: Median follow-up of the 44 analyzed patients was 21.2 months. The central nervous system objective response (CNS-OR) rate was 66%. At baseline, 20 of 41 assessable patients for CTC (49%) had ≥1 CTC (range 1-301, median 3) and 9 (22%) had ≥5 CTC. At day 21, 7 of 38 patients (18%) had ≥1 CTC (P = 0.006, versus baseline), and CTC had disappeared in 11 patients. CNS-OR rate was significantly higher in patients with no CTC at day 21 [25 of 31 (80%) versus 2 of 7 (29%), P = 0.01]. The 1-year overall survival rate was 83.9% in patients with no CTC at day 21 versus 42.9% in patients with ≥1 CTC (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report showing a correlation between CNS metastasis response, outcome and early CTC clearance under targeted treatment of HER2+ MBC. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00967031.

Long term activity of vemurafenib in cancers with BRAF mutations: the ACSE basket study for advanced cancers other than BRAFV600-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: BRAF inhibitors are approved in BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD), and thyroid cancer. We report here the efficacy, safety, and long-term results of single-agent vemurafenib given in the AcSé vemurafenib basket study to patients with various BRAF-mutated advanced tumours other than BRAFV600-mutated melanoma and NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced tumours other than BRAFV600E melanoma and progressing after standard treatment were eligible for inclusion in nine cohorts (including a miscellaneous cohort) and received oral vemurafenib 960 mg two times daily. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) estimated with a Bayesian design. The secondary outcomes were disease control rate, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and vemurafenib safety. RESULTS: A total of 98 advanced patients with various solid or haematological cancers, 88 with BRAFV600 mutations and 10 with BRAFnonV600 mutations, were included. The median follow-up duration was 47.7 months. The Bayesian estimate of ORR was 89.7% in hairy cell leukaemias (HCLs), 33.3% in the glioblastomas cohort, 18.2% in cholangiocarcinomas, 80.0% in ECD, 50.0% in ovarian cancers, 50.0% in xanthoastrocytomas, 66.7% in gangliogliomas, and 60.0% in sarcomas. The median PFS of the whole series was 8.8 months. The 12-, 24-, and 36-month PFS rates were 42.2%, 23.8%, and 17.9%, respectively. Overall, 54 patients died with a median OS of 25.9 months, with a projected 4-year OS of 40%. Adverse events were similar to those previously reported with vemurafenib. CONCLUSION: Responses and prolonged PFS were observed in many tumours with BRAF mutations, including HCL, ECD, ovarian carcinoma, gliomas, ganglioglioma, and sarcomas. Although not all cancer types responded, vemurafenib is an agnostic oncogene therapy of cancers.

Phase I study of lapatinib plus vinorelbine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer overexpressing HER2.

BACKGROUND: To determine the recommended doses of lapatinib (LPT) combined with vinorelbine (VNR) in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing advanced breast cancer pretreated with trastuzumab. METHODS: In this phase I study, women were treated with oral daily LPT and i.v. VNR infused on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Dose levels (DL) of LPT (mg)/VNR (mg m(-2)) ranged from 750/20 to 1250/30. The primary end point was feasibility based on maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and maximum administered dose (MAD). Pharmacokinetic interactions were investigated. RESULTS: Of 33 patients included, 29 were evaluable. Two DLT occurred at DL4 (1000/25) meeting the MAD criteria. Despite an additional intermediate DL3' (1250/22.5), MTD was reached at DL3 (1000/22.5). Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the most common toxicity (34% and 38% of patients, respectively). Other significant toxicities included grade 3-4 diarrhoea (3% each), and grade 3 asthenia (10%). Although not statistically significant, LPT (at 1000 or 1250 mg) decreased the VNR clearance by 30-40% compared with DL1. CONCLUSION: The MTD LPT 1000 mg/VNR 22.5 mg m(-2) (DL3) is recommended for additional development. Pharmacokinetic interactions might increase the exposure to VNR and consequently alter the hematological tolerance.