Pralsetinib for RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARROW): a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study.

BACKGROUND: Oncogenic alterations in RET have been identified in multiple tumour types, including 1-2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and antitumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase 1/2 study done at 71 sites (community and academic cancer centres) in 13 countries (Belgium, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, including RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later limited to 0-1 in a protocol amendment) were enrolled. In phase 2, patients received 400 mg once-daily oral pralsetinib, and could continue treatment until disease progression, intolerance, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Phase 2 primary endpoints were overall response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1·1 and assessed by blinded independent central review) and safety. Tumour response was assessed in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease who had received platinum-based chemotherapy or were treatment-naive because they were ineligible for standard therapy. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03037385, and enrolment of patients with treatment-naive RET fusion-positive NSCLC was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. FINDINGS: Of 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC enrolled between March 17, 2017, and May 22, 2020 (data cutoff), 92 with previous platinum-based chemotherapy and 29 who were treatment-naive received pralsetinib before July 11, 2019 (efficacy enrolment cutoff); 87 previously treated patients and 27 treatment-naive patients had centrally adjudicated baseline measurable disease. Overall responses were recorded in 53 (61%; 95% CI 50-71) of 87 patients with previous platinum-based chemotherapy, including five (6%) patients with a complete response; and 19 (70%; 50-86) of 27 treatment-naive patients, including three (11%) with a complete response. In 233 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC, common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (43 patients [18%]), hypertension (26 [11%]), and anaemia (24 [10%]); there were no treatment-related deaths in this population. INTERPRETATION: Pralsetinib is a new, well-tolerated, promising, once-daily oral treatment option for patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: Blueprint Medicines.

Five-year outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with 2 cycles of chemotherapy versus 4 cycles of chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the randomized CheckMate 9LA trial.

BACKGROUND: We report 5-year efficacy and safety outcomes from CheckMate 9LA in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and exploratory analyses in key patient subgroups. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent NSCLC and no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were randomized to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (n = 361) or chemotherapy (n = 358). Outcomes were assessed in all randomized patients and subgroups. RESULTS: With 57.3 months' minimum follow-up, patients continued to derive overall survival (OS) benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy over chemotherapy (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85; 5-year OS rates, 18% vs. 11%), regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (PD-L1 < 1%, 22% vs. 8%; PD-L1 ≥ 1%, 18% vs. 11%), histology (squamous, 18% vs. 7%; non-squamous, 19% vs. 12%), or presence of baseline brain metastases (20% vs. 6%). Five-year duration of response (DOR) rates were 19% versus 8% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, with consistent benefit across subgroups. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy due to treatment-related adverse events had a 5-year OS rate of 37%. Five-year progression-free survival and DOR rates in 5-year survivors were 55% versus 38% and 59% versus 46%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed in 5-year survivors, regardless of the number of ipilimumab doses received. CONCLUSION: This 5-year update supports the long-term, durable OS benefit and improved 5-year survivorship with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy over chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression or histology. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT03215706.

Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III EVOKE-01 Study.

PURPOSE: The open-label, phase III EVOKE-01 study evaluated sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus standard-of-care docetaxel in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with progression on/after platinum-based chemotherapy, anti-PD-(L)1, and targeted treatment for actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Primary analysis is reported. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by histology, best response to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen, and AGA treatment received or not) to SG (one 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) or docetaxel (one 75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on day 1) in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, patient-reported symptom assessment, and safety. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (SG, n = 299; docetaxel, n = 304), 55.4% had one previous line of therapy. Median follow-up was 12.7 months (range, 6.0-24.0). The primary end point was not met. There was a numerical OS improvement for SG versus docetaxel (median, 11.1 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .0534), consistent across squamous and nonsquamous histologies. Median PFS was 4.1 versus 3.9 months (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.11]). An OS benefit was observed for SG (n = 192) versus docetaxel (n = 191) in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen (3.5-month median OS increase; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97]); this was consistent across histologies. Among patients receiving SG and docetaxel, 6.8% and 14.2% discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), respectively; 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, had TRAEs leading to death. CONCLUSION: Although statistical significance was not met, OS numerically improved with SG versus docetaxel, which was consistent across histologies. Clinically meaningful improvement in OS was noted in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen. SG was better tolerated than docetaxel and consistent with its known safety profile, with no new safety signals.

Long-Term Survival Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab-Based Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tumor PD-L1 <1%: a Pooled Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab-based treatment regimens have shown long-term, durable efficacy benefit in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we report clinical outcomes from a pooled analysis of patients with metastatic NSCLC and tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% treated with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without two cycles of chemotherapy versus up to four cycles of chemotherapy in the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA studies. METHODS: Patients were aged ≥18 years and had stage IV/recurrent NSCLC with no sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations. Assessments included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety. RESULTS: In patients with tumor PD-L1 <1% in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy (n = 322) versus chemotherapy (n = 315) arms, median OS was 17.4 versus 11.3 months, respectively, (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-0.76; 5-year OS rate, 20% versus 7%) at a median follow-up of 73.7 months. OS benefit was observed across key subgroups, including difficult-to-treat populations such as those with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26-0.75) or squamous NSCLC (HR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.36-0.72). In the overall pooled population, median PFS was 5.4 versus 4.9 months (HR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60-0.87; 5-year PFS rate, 9% versus 2%), ORR was 29% versus 22%, and median DOR was 18.0 versus 4.6 months. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without chemotherapy provides a long-term, durable clinical benefit in patients with metastatic NSCLC and tumor PD-L1 <1%, supporting the use of this strategy as a first-line treatment option in this population with high unmet need.

First-line Avelumab plus Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: Results from the Phase Ib/II JAVELIN Chemotherapy Medley Study.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy can potentially enhance the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors by promoting immune priming. The phase Ib/II JAVELIN Chemotherapy Medley trial (NCT03317496) evaluated first-line avelumab + concurrent chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Avelumab 800 or 1,200 mg was administered continuously every 3 weeks with standard doses of cisplatin + gemcitabine in patients with urothelial carcinoma, or carboplatin + pemetrexed in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. Dual primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; phase Ib) and confirmed objective response (phase Ib/II). RESULTS: In phase Ib, urothelial carcinoma and NSCLC cohorts received avelumab 800 mg (n = 13 and n = 6, respectively) or 1,200 mg (n = 6 each) + chemotherapy. In evaluable patients with urothelial carcinoma treated with avelumab 800 or 1,200 mg + chemotherapy, DLT occurred in 1/12 (8.3%) and 1/6 (16.7%), respectively; no DLT occurred in the NSCLC cohort. In phase II, 35 additional patients with urothelial carcinoma received avelumab 1,200 mg + chemotherapy. Across all treated patients, safety profiles were similar irrespective of avelumab dose. Objective response rates (95% confidence internal) with avelumab 800 or 1,200 mg + chemotherapy, respectively, across phase Ib/II, were 53.8% (25.1-80.8) and 39.0% (24.2-55.5) in urothelial carcinoma, and 50.0% (11.8-88.2) and 33.3% (4.3-77.7) in NSCLC. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary efficacy and safety findings with avelumab + chemotherapy in urothelial carcinoma and NSCLC were consistent with previous studies of similar combination regimens. Conclusions about clinical activity are limited by small patient numbers. SIGNIFICANCE: This phase Ib/II trial evaluated avelumab (immune checkpoint inhibitor) administered concurrently with standard first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma or advanced nonsquamous NSCLC without actionable mutations. Efficacy and safety appeared consistent with previous studies of similar combinations, although patient numbers were small.

Tepotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with high-level MET amplification detected by liquid biopsy: VISION Cohort B.

High-level MET amplification (METamp) is a primary driver in ∼1%-2% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Cohort B of the phase 2 VISION trial evaluates tepotinib, an oral MET inhibitor, in patients with advanced NSCLC with high-level METamp who were enrolled by liquid biopsy. While the study was halted before the enrollment of the planned 60 patients, the results of 24 enrolled patients are presented here. The objective response rate (ORR) is 41.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.1-63.4), and the median duration of response is 14.3 months (95% CI, 2.8-not estimable). In exploratory biomarker analyses, focal METamp, RB1 wild-type, MYC diploidy, low circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) burden at baseline, and early molecular response are associated with better outcomes. Adverse events include edema (composite term; any grade: 58.3%; grade 3: 12.5%) and constipation (any grade: 41.7%; grade 3: 4.2%). Tepotinib provides antitumor activity in high-level METamp NSCLC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02864992).

Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate 227.

PURPOSE: We present 5-year results from CheckMate 227 Part 1, in which nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations and with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% or < 1% (n = 1739) were randomly assigned. Patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% were randomly assigned to first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. Patients with tumor PD-L1 < 1% were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. End points included exploratory 5-year results for efficacy, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year OS rates were 24% versus 14% for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19% versus 7% (PD-L1 < 1%). The median duration of response was 24.5 versus 6.7 months (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19.4 versus 4.8 months (PD-L1 < 1%). Among patients surviving 5 years, 66% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 64% (PD-L1 < 1%) were off nivolumab plus ipilimumab without initiating subsequent systemic anticancer treatment by the 5-year time point. Survival benefit continued after nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinuation because of treatment-related adverse events, with a 5-year OS rate of 39% (combined PD-L1 ≥ 1% and < 1% populations). Quality of life in 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was similar to that in the general US population through the 5-year follow-up. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: With all patients off immunotherapy treatment for ≥ 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased 5-year survivorship versus chemotherapy, including long-term, durable clinical benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. These data support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes With First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC and Baseline Brain Metastases From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Here, we report post hoc exploratory systemic and intracranial efficacy outcomes and safety by baseline brain metastasis status at 5 years' minimum follow-up. METHODS: Treatment-naive adults with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations, including asymptomatic patients with treated brain metastases, were enrolled. Patients with tumor PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy; patients with tumor PD-L1 less than 1% were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy groups. Assessments included OS, systemic and intracranial progression-free survival per blinded independent central review, new brain lesion development, and safety. Brain imaging was performed at baseline (all randomized patients) and approximately every 12 weeks thereafter (patients with baseline brain metastases only). RESULTS: Overall, 202 of 1739 randomized patients had baseline brain metastases (nivolumab plus ipilimumab: 68; chemotherapy: 66). At 61.3 months' minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged OS versus chemotherapy in patients with baseline brain metastases (hazard ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.92) and in those without (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.87). In patients with baseline brain metastases, 5-year systemic and intracranial progression-free survival rates were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (12% and 16%, respectively) than chemotherapy (0% and 6%). Fewer patients with baseline brain metastases developed new brain lesions with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (4%) versus chemotherapy (20%). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: With all patients off immunotherapy for more than or equal to 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to provide a long-term, durable survival benefit in patients with or without brain metastases. Intracranial efficacy outcomes favored nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. These results further support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an efficacious first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC, regardless of baseline brain metastasis status.

Safety of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC: A Pooled Analysis of CheckMate 227, CheckMate 568, and CheckMate 817.

INTRODUCTION: We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). METHODS: We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up. METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). RESULTS: After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population. CONCLUSIONS: At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.

Phase I Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Ramucirumab in Combination with Osimertinib in Advanced T790M-positive EGFR-mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: We report the final analysis of JVDL (NCT02789345), which examined the combination of the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib plus the VEGFR2-directed antibody ramucirumab in patients with T790M-positive EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, single-arm phase I study enrolled patients with EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC, who had progressed following EGFR TKI but were third-generation EGFR TKI-naïve. A dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period with as-needed dose deescalation was followed by an expansion cohort. Patients received daily oral osimertinib and intravenous ramucirumab every 2 weeks until progression or discontinuation. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. No DLTs were observed. Median follow-up time was 25.0 months. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were hypertension (8%) and platelet count decreased (16%); grade 5 TRAE (subdural hemorrhage) occurred in 1 patient. Patients with (N = 10) and without central nervous system (CNS) metastasis (N = 15) had similar safety outcomes. Five patients remain on treatment. Objective response rate (ORR) was 76%. Median duration of response was 13.4 months [90% confidence interval (CI): 9.6-21.2]. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.0 months (90% CI: 5.5-19.3). Efficacy was observed in patients with and without CNS metastasis (ORR 60% and 87%; median PFS 10.9 and 14.7 months, respectively). Exploratory biomarker analyses in circulating tumor DNA suggested that on-treatment loss of EGFR Exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations, detectable at baseline, correlated with longer PFS, but on-treatment loss of T790M did not. Emergent genetic alterations postprogression included C797S, MET amplification, and EGFR amplification. CONCLUSIONS: Ramucirumab plus osimertinib demonstrated encouraging safety and antitumor activity in T790M-positive EGFR-mutant NSCLC.See related commentary by Garon, p. 905.

Treatment rationale and study design for a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus best supportive care immediately following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To improve the efficacy of first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), additional maintenance chemotherapy may be given after initial induction chemotherapy in patients who did not progress during the initial treatment, rather than waiting for disease progression to administer second-line treatment. Maintenance therapy may consist of an agent that either was or was not present in the induction regimen. The antifolate pemetrexed is efficacious in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and has shown efficacy as a maintenance agent in studies in which it was not included in the induction regimen. We designed a phase III study to determine if pemetrexed maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after cisplatin/pemetrexed induction therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Furthermore, since evidence suggests expression levels of thymidylate synthase, the primary target of pemetrexed, may be associated with responsiveness to pemetrexed, translational research will address whether thymidylate synthase expression correlates with efficacy outcomes of pemetrexed. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 900 patients will receive four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who have not progressed during induction therapy will randomly receive (in a 2:1 ratio) one of two double-blind maintenance regimens: pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary objective is to compare PFS between treatment arms. Secondary objectives include a fully powered analysis of OS, objective tumor response rate, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and toxicity. Tumor specimens for translational research will be obtained from consenting patients before induction treatment, with a second biopsy performed in eligible patients following the induction phase. DISCUSSION: Although using a drug as maintenance therapy that was not used in the induction regimen exposes patients to an agent with a different mechanism of action, evidence suggests that continued use of an agent present in the induction regimen as maintenance therapy enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from maintenance treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00789373 TRIAL ABBREVIATION: H3E-EW-S124.

Precision Prevention and Cancer Interception: The New Challenges of Liquid Biopsy.

Despite major therapeutic progress, most advanced solid tumors are still incurable. Cancer interception is the active way to combat cancer onset, and development of this approach within high-risk populations seems a logical first step. Until now, strategies for the identification of high-risk subjects have been based on low-sensitivity and low-specificity assays. However, new liquid biopsy assays, "the Rosetta Stone of the new biomedicine era," with the ability to identify circulating biomarkers with unprecedented sensitivity, promise to revolutionize cancer management. This review focuses on novel liquid biopsy approaches and the applications to cancer interception. Cancer interception involves the identification of biomarkers associated with developing cancer, and includes genetic and epigenetic alterations, as well as circulating tumor cells and circulating epithelial cells in individuals at risk, and the implementation of therapeutic strategies to prevent the beginning of cancer and to stop its development. Large prospective studies are needed to confirm the potential role of liquid biopsy for early detection of precancer lesions and tumors.

Abemaciclib in Combination with Single-Agent Options in Patients with Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase Ib Study.

Purpose: Abemaciclib, a dual inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, has demonstrated preclinical activity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase Ib study was conducted to test safety, MTD, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity of abemaciclib in combination with other therapies for treatment in patients with metastatic NSCLC.Patients and Methods: An initial dose escalation phase was used to determine the MTD of twice-daily oral abemaciclib (150, 200 mg) plus pemetrexed, gemcitabine, or ramucirumab, followed by an expansion phase for each drug combination. Pemetrexed and gemcitabine were administered according to label. The abemaciclib plus ramucirumab study examined two dosing schedules.Results: The three study parts enrolled 86 patients; all received ≥1 dose of combination therapy. Across arms, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue, diarrhea, neutropenia, decreased appetite, and nausea. The trial did not identify an abemaciclib MTD for the combination with pemetrexed or gemcitabine but did so for the combination of abemaciclib with days 1 and 8 ramucirumab (8 mg/kg). Plasma sample analysis showed that abemaciclib did not influence the pharmacokinetics of the combination agents and the combination agents did not affect abemaciclib exposure. The disease control rate was 57% for patients treated with abemaciclib-pemetrexed, 25% for abemaciclib-gemcitabine, and 54% for abemaciclib-ramucirumab. Median progression-free survival was 5.55, 1.58, and 4.83 months, respectively.Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile when dosed on a continuous twice-daily schedule in combination with pemetrexed, gemcitabine, or ramucirumab. Abemaciclib exposures remained consistent with those observed in single-agent studies. Clin Cancer Res; 24(22); 5543-51. ©2018 AACR.

Meta-analysis examining impact of age on overall survival with pemetrexed for the treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In clinical practice, elderly patients are often undertreated relative to younger patients. This meta-analysis was designed to determine whether older patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) could derive an overall survival (OS) benefit from pemetrexed treatment comparable to that experienced by younger patients in the first-line, second-line, or maintenance settings. METHODS: Data from 2671 patients with non-squamous NSCLC participating in four pemetrexed phase III studies were included in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Studies included were: JMEI (second-line pemetrexed, N=399); JMDB (first-line pemetrexed/cisplatin, N=1252); JMEN (pemetrexed maintenance after non-pemetrexed/platinum doublet, N=481); and PARAMOUNT (pemetrexed maintenance after first-line pemetrexed/cisplatin, N=539). Patients were predominantly Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0/1. The ratio of OS hazard ratio (HR) (pemetrexed versus control) for younger patients over that for older patients within each study was used as the measure of the differential effect of pemetrexed. Data were examined using age cutoffs of 65 and 70 years. RESULTS: Among the four studies, 32% of patients were aged ≥65 years and 14% were aged ≥70 years. The test of heterogeneity among studies was non-significant for subgroups defined by age 65 (P=0.083) and age 70 (P=0.848). The pooled ratio of the OS HR (pemetrexed versus control) in patients <65years to that in patients ≥65 years was 0.92 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.67-1.25). Similar results were seen for the analysis using the age 70 years cut-off (0.80 [95% CI 0.62-1.04]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-squamous NSCLC with good PS, the effect of pemetrexed on OS was not found to be different in younger and older patients undergoing treatment in the first-line, second-line, or maintenance settings.

Safety Analyses of Pemetrexed-cisplatin and Pemetrexed Maintenance Therapies in Patients With Advanced Non-squamous NSCLC: Retrospective Analyses From 2 Phase III Studies.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III study, maintenance pemetrexed showed superior survival over placebo (PARAMOUNT) for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed 4 cycles of pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PC) induction therapy, with low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) generally associated with pemetrexed. Prior analyses did not account for toxicities carried over from induction; thus, the current analysis was developed to understand toxicities that may be attributed to pemetrexed maintenance versus PC induction, and how treatment duration affects toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Selected clinically relevant TEAEs were explored in 2 analyses: assessing induction versus maintenance treatment in PARAMOUNT, and comparing PC from PARAMOUNT with toxicity data from a previous phase III study that established the role of PC in front-line therapy of non-squamous NSCLC (JMDB trial). RESULTS: In PARAMOUNT, the incidence of most drug-related TEAEs was higher during induction than maintenance, for both the pemetrexed and placebo randomized populations. The majority of TEAEs during maintenance, except renal events, were carried over from induction with no change in severity from the end of induction; the incidence of TEAEs associated with pemetrexed maintenance was low. The cross-trial analysis showed that 6 cycles of PC in JMDB compared with 4 cycles in PARAMOUNT increased grade 1/2 fatigue (34.1% vs. 25.0%), anemia (24.0% vs. 13.5%), and renal events (11.8% vs. 3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Safety data presented here support the favorable risk benefit of 4 cycles of PC followed by maintenance pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Treatment outcomes by histology in REVEL: A randomized phase III trial of Ramucirumab plus docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Ramucirumab, a recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, increased overall survival (OS) combined with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the REVEL trial. Pre-specified exploratory analysis examined efficacy and safety by histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1253 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive ramucirumab (10mg/kg; n=628) plus docetaxel (75mg/m2) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=625) after disease progression on or after platinum-based therapy, with or without bevacizumab or maintenance therapy. OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. Primary quality-of-life analysis was time to deterioration (TtD) of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) scores using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. RESULTS: Median OS for adenocarcinoma was 11.2 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n = 377) and 9.8 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=348); HR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.69-0.99). In squamous disease, median OS was 9.5 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n=157) versus 8.2 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=171); HR 0.88 (95% CI: 0.69-1.13). Median OS for other nonsquamous was 10.8 months for ramucirumab-docetaxel (n=74) and 9.3 months for placebo-docetaxel (n=78); HR=0.86 (95% CI: 0.59-1.26). Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment arms across histologic subgroups. TtD for LCSS scores was similar between treatment arms in the nonsquamous and squamous subgroups. CONCLUSION: REVEL demonstrated similar favorable efficacy and manageable safety for ramucirumab-docetaxel across histologic subgroups of NSCLC.

PARAMOUNT: Descriptive subgroup analyses of final overall survival for the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The PARAMOUNT phase III trial demonstrated that pemetrexed continuation maintenance significantly reduced the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio = 0.62) and death (hazard ratio = 0.78) versus placebo in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. To further understand the survival data, descriptive subgroup analyses were undertaken. METHODS: Nine hundred thirty-nine patients received induction therapy (four 21-day cycles pemetrexed 500 mg/m and cisplatin 75 mg/m), after which 539 nonprogressing patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0/1 were randomized (2:1) to maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m) cycles or placebo until disease progression. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of patients surviving for longer periods were comparable to patients surviving shorter periods, suggesting overall survival (OS) benefit for all subgroups of patients on maintenance therapy. An examination of type and severity of induction adverse events also found no association with survival duration. Response to induction (tumor response versus stable disease) was not determinate of pemetrexed maintenance OS outcome as assessed by waterfall plot and scattergrams and by the distribution of patients among various OS intervals. The length of the interval before beginning maintenance therapy (<7 days versus ≥7/≤30 days) also did not impact the survival results. PS, a known prognostic factor, was the only baseline characteristic associated with improved OS; however, both PS 0 and PS 1 patients exhibited a survival benefit from pemetrexed maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAMOUNT, the OS benefit was seen across all subgroups. Other than PS, no baseline or clinical parameter clearly identified a subgroup more likely to benefit. Maintenance treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis.

Final efficacy and safety results of pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in the elderly from the PARAMOUNT phase III study.

INTRODUCTION: The PARAMOUNT Phase III trial showed that maintenance pemetrexed after pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction was well tolerated and effective for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Approximately 17% of patients receiving maintenance therapy in this study were 70 years of age or older. Here we report efficacy and safety results from the PARAMOUNT study for elderly (≥70 years) and non-elderly (<70 years) patients. METHODS: Final efficacy and safety data from the PARAMOUNT study were analyzed post hoc using subgroup analyses for elderly and non-elderly patients. RESULTS: The median age was 73 years in the elderly subgroup (n = 92) and 60 years in the non-elderly subgroup (n = 447). Subgroups had similar baseline characteristics, except for a higher percentage of males and patients with a performance status of one in the elderly subgroup. For elderly patients, the median PFS was 6.4 months for pemetrexed and 3.0 months for placebo; the median OS was 13.7 months for pemetrexed and 12.1 months for placebo. For non-elderly patients, the median PFS was 4.0 months for pemetrexed and 2.8 months for placebo; the median OS was 13.9 months for pemetrexed and 10.8 months for placebo. Elderly patients experienced similar levels of low-grade toxicities, but had a higher percentage of grade 3/4 anemia and neutropenia than non-elderly patients, although importantly, this did not translate into increased febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation maintenance pemetrexed had comparable survival and toxicity profiles in the elderly and non-elderly subgroups. However, grade 3/4 anemia and neutropenia were numerically higher for elderly patients.