First-line single-agent pembrolizumab for PD-L1-positive (tumor proportion score ≥ 50%) advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the real world: impact in brain metastasis: a national French multicentric cohort (ESCKEYP GFPC study).

BACKGROUND: Few real-world data are available in patients with advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with first-line immunotherapy, particularly in those with brain metastases at treatment initiation. METHODS: This was a national, retrospective, multicenter study that consecutively included all patients with PD-L1-positive (tumor proportion score ≥ 50%) advanced NSCLC who initiated first-line treatment with pembrolizumab as a single agent between May 2017 (date of availability of pembrolizumab in this indication in France) to November 22, 2019 (approval of the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy combination). Data were collected from medical records with local response assessment. RESULTS: The cohort included 845 patients and 176 (20.8%) had brain metastases at diagnosis. There were no significant differences in outcomes for patients with and without brain metastases: 9.2 (95% CI 5.6-15) and 8 (95% CI 6.7-9.2, p = 0.3) months for median progression-free survival (PFS) and, 29.5 (95% CI 17.2-NA) and 22 (95% CI 17.8-27.1, p = 0.3) months for median overall survival (OS), respectively. Overall response rates were 47% and 45% in patients with and without cerebral metastases. In multivariate analysis, performance status 2-4 vs. 0-1 and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥ 4 vs. < 4 were the main independent negative factors for OS; brain metastasis was not an independent factor for OS. CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter cohort, nearly 20% of patients initiating pembrolizumab therapy for advanced NSCLC had cerebral metastases. There was no significant difference in response rates, PFS and OS between patients with and without brain metastases.

Validation of an anti-α-Gal IgE fluoroenzyme-immunoassay for the screening of patients at risk of severe anaphylaxis to cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: The link between immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) following the first cetuximab infusion and the IgE sensitization against anti-galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-Gal) is now well-established. An automated Fluoroenzyme-Immunoassay (FEIA) is available and may facilitate the screening of patients with anti-α-Gal IgE before treatment. METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate its performances as compared to a previously validated anti-cetuximab IgE ELISA, using 185 samples from two previously studied cohorts. RESULTS: Despite 21.1% of discrepancies between the two techniques, FEIA discriminated better positive patients and similarly negative ones with a ≥ 0.525 kUA/L threshold. Sensitivity was 87.5% for both tests, specificity was better for FEIA (96.3% vs ELISA: 82.1%). FEIA had a higher positive likelihood ratio (23.9 vs ELISA: 4.89) and a similar negative likelihood ratio (0.13 vs ELISA: 0.15). In our population, the risk of severe HSR following a positive test was higher with FEIA (56.7% vs ELISA: 19.6%) and similar following a negative test (0.7% vs ELISA: 0.8%). CONCLUSION: Although the predictive value of the IgE screening before cetuximab infusion remains discussed, this automated commercial test can identify high-risk patients and is suitable for routine use in laboratories. It could help avoiding cetuximab-induced HSR by a systematic anti-α-Gal IgE screening before treatment.

First-line pembrolizumab with or without platinum doublet chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is currently used in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, regardless of PD-L1 expression status. A study comparing chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone has never been performed in patients with PD-L1 ≥50%. The aim of this trial is to perform such a comparison as first-line treatment in patients not eligible for locally advanced treatment who have expression of PD-L1 on ≥50% of tumor cells. The expected results are a reduction in the risk of early progression. A higher objective tumor response is also expected with the combination of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab compared with pembrolizumab alone. The study will allow a direct comparison of the proportion of patients who derive long-term benefit from the treatment. Clinical trial number: EudraCT (2020-002626-86); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04547504).

Lay abstract Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most frequent type of lung cancer. Most NSCLC patients are diagnosed with advanced disease and only 10­15% of them are alive after 5 years. In the absence of specific tumor mutations, the currently recommended treatment is a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy with the monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab. The goal of immunotherapy is to prevent cancer from evading the immune system by interacting with molecules expressed at the surface of tumor cells (PD-L1) or immune cells (PD-1). A study comparing chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone has never been performed in patients with a high level of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells. Therefore we designed the PERSEE study to compare these treatments in advanced-stage NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression on ≥50% of tumor cells.

Carboplatin plus etoposide versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0-37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9-5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3-3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41-0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and systemic treatments for extracerebral oligometastases, oligorecurrence, oligopersistence and oligoprogression from lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic irradiation (SBRT) is a standard of care for inoperable stage I lung cancer and brain oligometastases from lung cancer but is controversial for extracranial oligometastases. We assessed outcomes of lung cancer patients with extracranial metastases in oligometastatic, oligorecurrent, oligopersistent and oligoprogressive settings ("oligometastatic spectrum") under strategies using SBRT +/- systemic treatments. METHODS: A retrospective multicentric study of consecutive lung cancer adult patients with 1-5 extracranial metastases treated with SBRT was conducted. RESULTS: Of 91 patients (99 metastases, median age 63, 64.8% adenocarcinomas, 19.8% molecular alterations), 11% had oligometastases, 49.5% oligorecurrence, 19.8% oligopersistence and 19.8% oligoprogression. Of 36% of patients under systemic treatments at initiation of SBRT, systemic treatment interruption was performed in 58% of them. With median follow up of 15.3 months, crude local control at irradiated metastases was 91%, while median distant progression-free survival (dPFS) and overall survival were 6.3 and 28.4 months (2-year survival 54%). Initial nodal stage and oligometastatic spectrum were prognostic factors for dPFS; age, initial primary stage and oligometastatic spectrum were prognostic factors for survival on multivariate analysis. Patients with oncogene-addicted tumors more frequently had oligoprogressive disease. Repeat ablative irradiations were preformed in 80% of patients who had oligorelapses. Worst acute toxicities consisted of 5.5% and one late toxic death occurred. CONCLUSION: The oligometastatic spectrum is a strong prognosticator in patients undergoing SBRT for extracranial metastases. Median survival was over two years but dPFS was about 6 months. Continuation of systemic therapy in oligoprogressive patients should be investigated.

Vemurafenib in Multiple Nonmelanoma Cancers with BRAF V600 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: BRAF V600 mutations occur in various nonmelanoma cancers. We undertook a histology-independent phase 2 "basket" study of vemurafenib in BRAF V600 mutation-positive nonmelanoma cancers. METHODS: We enrolled patients in six prespecified cancer cohorts; patients with all other tumor types were enrolled in a seventh cohort. A total of 122 patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive cancer were treated, including 27 patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. The primary end point was the response rate; secondary end points included progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: In the cohort with non-small-cell lung cancer, the response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20 to 67) and median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 10.8). In the cohort with Erdheim-Chester disease or Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis, the response rate was 43% (95% CI, 18 to 71); the median treatment duration was 5.9 months (range, 0.6 to 18.6), and no patients had disease progression during therapy. There were anecdotal responses among patients with pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, anaplastic thyroid cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, salivary-duct cancer, ovarian cancer, and clear-cell sarcoma and among patients with colorectal cancer who received vemurafenib and cetuximab. Safety was similar to that in prior studies of vemurafenib for melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF V600 appears to be a targetable oncogene in some, but not all, nonmelanoma cancers. Preliminary vemurafenib activity was observed in non-small-cell lung cancer and in Erdheim-Chester disease and Langerhans'-cell histiocytosis. The histologic context is an important determinant of response in BRAF V600-mutated cancers. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01524978.).

Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with poor prognosis, linked to occupational asbestos exposure. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a key mitogen for malignant pleural mesothelioma cells, therefore targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor might prove effective. We aimed to assess the effect on survival of bevacizumab when added to the present standard of care, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, as first-line treatment of advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma who had not received previous chemotherapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had no substantial cardiovascular comorbidity, were not amenable to curative surgery, had at least one evaluable (pleural effusion) or measurable (pleural tumour solid thickening) lesion with CT, and a life expectancy of >12 weeks from 73 hospitals in France. Exclusion criteria were presence of central nervous system metastases, use of antiaggregant treatments (aspirin ≥325 mg per day, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, or dipyridamole), anti-vitamin K drugs at a curative dose, treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin at a curative dose, and treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; minimisation method used [random factor of 0·8]; patients stratified by histology [epithelioid vs sarcomatoid or mixed histology subtypes], performance status score [0-1 vs 2], study centre, or smoking status [never smokers vs smokers]) to receive intravenously 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed plus 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin with (PCB) or without (PC) 15 mg/kg bevacizumab in 21 day cycles for up to six cycles, until progression or toxic effects. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to treat population. Treatment was open label. This IFCT-GFPC-0701 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00651456. FINDINGS: From Feb 13, 2008, to Jan 5, 2014, we randomly assigned 448 patients to treatment (223 [50%] to PCB and 225 [50%] to PC). OS was significantly longer with PCB (median 18·8 months [95% CI 15·9-22·6]) than with PC (16·1 months [14·0-17·9]; hazard ratio 0·77 [0·62-0·95]; p=0·0167). Overall, 158 (71%) of 222 patients given PCB and 139 (62%) of 224 patients given PC had grade 3-4 adverse events. We noted more grade 3 or higher hypertension (51 [23%] of 222 vs 0) and thrombotic events (13 [6%] of 222 vs 2 [1%] of 224) with PCB than with PC. INTERPRETATION: Addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin significantly improved OS in malignant pleural mesothelioma at the cost of expected manageable toxic effects, therefore it should be considered as a suitable treatment for the disease. FUNDING: Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique (IFCT).

Utility of serum anti-cetuximab immunoglobulin E levels to identify patients at a high risk of severe hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab.

AIM: Cetuximab is an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody used for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and head and neck cancer. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are associated with cetuximab use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of anti-cetuximab immunoglobulin E (IgE) detection in order to identify patients at risk of HSR to cetuximab. METHODS: We included patients ready to receive a first cetuximab infusion in a prospective cohort carried out at nine French centres. Pretreatment anti-cetuximab IgE levels were measured. We compared the proportion of severe HSRs in the low anti-cetuximab IgE levels (≤29 IgE arbitrary units) subgroup with that in a historical cohort of 213 patients extracted from a previous study. RESULTS: Of the 301 assessable patients (mean age: 60.9 ± 9.3 years, head-and-neck cancer: 77%), 66 patients (22%) had high anti-cetuximab IgE levels, and 247 patients received cetuximab (including 38 with high anti-cetuximab levels). Severe HSRs occurred in eight patients (five grade 3 and three grade 4). The proportion of severe HSRs was lower in the low anti-cetuximab IgE levels subgroup vs. the historical cohort (3/209 [1.4%] vs. 11/213 [5.2%], odds ratio, 0.27, 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.97), and higher in high vs. low anti-cetuximab IgE levels subgroup (5/38 [13.2%] vs. 3/209 [1.4%]; odds ratio, 10.4, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-45.6). Patients with severe HSRs had higher anti-cetuximab IgE levels than patients without reaction (median, 45 vs. 2 IgE arbitrary units, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of pretreatment anti-cetuximab IgE is feasible and helpful to identify patients at risk of severe cetuximab-induced HSRs.

Retrospective evaluation of concomitant cetuximab and radiotherapy tolerance for locoregional advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment in patients unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy.

Radiotherapy associated with cetuximab (Cet-RT) is an alternative treatment to platinum-based chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LAHNC). Reviews suggest that the use of cetuximab is associated with poorer tolerance in patients unfit for chemotherapy than in pivotal trial. We retrospectively studied patients first treated by Cet-RT for LAHNC presenting contraindications to chemoradiotherapy. Objectives were treated population description, acute tolerance, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and 3-month clinical response. Eighty-eight patients were included. Treatment was completed without delay for 43 patients. Grade 3-4 acute toxicity was described in 44.3%: mucositis (n = 20), radiodermatitis (n = 25) folliculitis (n = 10), and anaphylaxis (n = 6). Fourteen patients died during treatment. Median PFS and OS were 6.3 and 18.7 months, respectively. We confirm that Cet-RT tolerance in unfit patients is poorer than that in trials. Survival data illustrate patients' frailty and suggest that balanced use of Cet-RT is required in this population.

TG4010 immunotherapy and first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (TIME): results from the phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: MUC1 is a tumour-associated antigen expressed by many solid tumours, including non-small-cell lung cancer. TG4010 is a modified vaccinia Ankara expressing MUC1 and interleukin 2. In a previous study, TG4010 combined with chemotherapy showed activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and the baseline value of CD16, CD56, CD69 triple-positive activated lymphocytes (TrPAL) was shown to be potentially predictive of TG4010 efficacy. In this phase 2b part of the phase 2b/3 TIME trial, we further assess TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy and use of the TrPAL biomarker in this setting. METHODS: In this phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial, we recruited previously untreated patients aged 18 years or older with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without a known activating EGFR mutation and with MUC1 expression in at least 50% of tumoural cells. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by an external service provider to subcutaneous injections of 10(8) plaque-forming units of TG4010 or placebo from the beginning of chemotherapy every week for 6 weeks and then every 3 weeks up to progression, discontinuation for any reason, or toxic effects, stratified according to baseline value of TrPAL (≤ or > the upper limit of normal [ULN]) and, in addition, a dynamic minimisation procedure was used, taking into account chemotherapy regimen, histology, addition or not of bevacizumab, performance status, and centre. Patients, site staff, monitors, the study funder, data managers, and the statistician were masked to treatment identity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed every 6 weeks, to validate the predictive value of the TrPAL biomarker. If patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN had a Bayesian probability of more than 95% that the true hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was less than 1, and if those with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN had a probability of more than 80% that the true HR for progression-free survival was more than 1, the TrPAL biomarker would be validated. We did primary analyses in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in those who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one valid post-baseline safety assessment. Monitors, site staff, and patients are still masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01383148. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2012, and Sept 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 222 patients (TG4010 and chemotherapy 111 [50%]; placebo and chemotherapy 111 [50%]). In the whole population, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 5·4-6·7) in the TG4010 group and 5·1 months (4·2-5·9) in the placebo group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·98]; one-sided p=0·019). In patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·75 (0·54-1·03); the posterior probability of the HR being less than 1 was 98·4%, and thus the primary endpoint was met. In patients with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·77 (0·42-1·40); the posterior probability of the HR being greater than 1 was 31·3%, and the primary endpoint was not met. We noted grade 1-2 injection-site reactions in 36 (33%) of 110 patients in the TG4010 group versus four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group. We noted no grade 3 or 4 nor serious adverse events deemed to be related to TG4010 only. Four (4%) patients presented grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to TG4010 and other study treatments (chemotherapy or bevacizumab) versus 11 (10%) in the placebo group. No serious adverse event was related to the combination of TG4010 with other study treatments. The most frequent severe adverse events were neutropenia (grade 3 29 [26%], grade 4 13 [12%] in the TG4010 group vs grade 3 22 [21%], grade 4 11 [10%] in the placebo group), anaemia (grade 3 12 [11%] vs grade 3 16 [15%]), and fatigue (grade 3 12 [11%], grade 5 one [1%] vs grade 3 13 [12%]; no grade 4 events). INTERPRETATION: TG4010 plus chemotherapy seems to improve progression-free survival relative to placebo plus chemotherapy. These data support the clinical value of the TrPAL biomarker in this clinical setting; because the primary endpoint was met, the trial is to continue into the phase 3 part. FUNDING: Transgene, Avancées Diagnostiques pour de Nouvelles Approches Thérapeutiques (ADNA), and OSEO.

Doxycycline for prevention of erlotinib-induced rash in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of first-line chemotherapy: A randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Rash is a common epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced toxicity that can impair quality of life and treatment compliance. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy of doxycycline in preventing erlotinib-induced rash (folliculitis) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This open-label, randomized, prospective, phase II trial was conducted in 147 patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after first-line chemotherapy, randomized for 4 months with erlotinib alone 150 mg/d per os (control arm) or combined with doxycycline 100 mg/d (doxycycline arm). Incidence and severity of rash, compliance, survival, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 147 patients were well balanced in the intent-to-treat population. Folliculitis occurred in 71% of patients in the doxycycline arm and 81% in the control arm (P = .175). The severity of folliculitis and other skin lesions was lower in the doxycycline arm compared with the control arm. Other adverse events were reported at a similar frequency across arms. There was no significant difference in survival between treatment arms. LIMITATIONS: The open-label design of the study and the duration of the treatment with doxycycline are limitations. CONCLUSION: Doxycycline did not reduce the incidence of erlotinib-induced folliculitis, but significantly reduced its severity.

How to improve the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? The French NAVI study.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still remain frequent. The procedure for announcing the diagnosis (PAD) was an emblematic measure of the first French Plan Cancer aiming at providing patients with time to listen, information after cancer diagnosis, and discussion on treatments and their side effects. We aimed at assessing the risk factors of CINV, focusing on patients' satisfaction with the PAD. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study assessed the frequency and intensity of CINV among chemonaïve patients during the first cycle of treatment. CINV was defined by ≥1 emetic episode or reported nausea intensity ≥3 on a 0-10 scale. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors related to global CINV onset including satisfaction with the PAD (satisfaction score ≥the median on a 0-10 scale). RESULTS: Data from 291 patients (women, 85.2%; mean age, 57 years) were analyzed. Most patients (69.4%) received highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and 77.7% received antiemetic drugs consistent with international guidelines. Acute, delayed and overall CINV were experienced by 40.4, 34.8 and 52.4% of patients, respectively. Sixty-seven per cent of patients were satisfied with the PAD. No relation was noted between PAD satisfaction and CINV onset. The nausea and vomiting dimension of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire before chemotherapy (OR 3.62), motion sickness history (OR 2.73), highly emetogenic CT (OR 2.73), anxiety (OR 1.99) and younger age (OR 1.96) were independent predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients were mostly satisfied with the PAD, half of them experienced CINV. A state of anxiety could be identified during the PAD to be managed.

Erlotinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced lepidic adenocarcinoma: IFCT-0504.

The IFCT-0504 phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of erlotinib versus carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) as first-line treatment in 130 cases of advanced lepidic-predominant adenocarcinoma (ADC).The primary objective of the study was treatment efficacy, evaluated based on an end-point of disease control at 16 weeks.The primary objective was met, with a disease control in 35 (53%) out of 66 patients treated with CP and in 25 (39.1%) out of 64 patients treated with erlotinib. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for the total population was 3.6 months. The disease control rate did not differ between either the therapeutic arms or pathological subtypes, whereas there was a strong interaction between treatment arms and tumour pathological subtypes for PFS (p=0.009). Mucinous tumour patients treated with erlotinib exhibited an increased progression risk (hazard ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-6.5; p≤0.001). The PFS for nonmucinous tumour patients was similar in both arms. Median overall survival was 20.1 months and did not differ between therapeutic arms. These findings were not further elucidated by molecular analyses and the toxicity profiles were as expected.Our study demonstrated the dominant role of CP alongside erlotinib in the management of advanced lepidic ADC. Based on these findings, erlotinib should not be administered in first-line therapy to patients with lepidic ADC in the absence of an epidermal growth factor receptor mutation.

Risk factors associated with hypersensitivity reactions to cetuximab: anti-cetuximab IgE detection as screening test.

AIM: To describe the factors associated with a high risk of a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab. PATIENTS & METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of patients living in Normandy (France) treated with cetuximab. RESULTS: Among the 229 treated patients, 24 (10.5%) had a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab, including 11 grade 3-5 reactions. Detection of anti-cetuximab IgE could be performed in 108 patients. Anti-cetuximab IgE was found in 13 of 17 patients (76.5%) who had a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab compared with 17 of 91 control patients (18.7%; adjusted odds ratio: 14.99; 95% CI: 3.59-62.63). No clinical criteria predicted the risk of allergy to cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Anti-cetuximab IgE may help physicians identify patients at risk of a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab.

Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

PURPOSE: We prospectively evaluated whether a strategy using point spread function (PSF) reconstruction for both diagnostic and quantitative analysis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients meets the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines for harmonization of quantitative values. METHODS: The NEMA NU-2 phantom was used to determine the optimal filter to apply to PSF-reconstructed images in order to obtain recovery coefficients (RCs) fulfilling the EANM guidelines for tumour positron emission tomography (PET) imaging (PSF(EANM)). PET data of 52 consecutive NSCLC patients were reconstructed with unfiltered PSF reconstruction (PSF(allpass)), PSF(EANM) and with a conventional ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm known to meet EANM guidelines. To mimic a situation in which a patient would undergo pre- and post-therapy PET scans on different generation PET systems, standardized uptake values (SUVs) for OSEM reconstruction were compared to SUVs for PSF(EANM) and PSF(allpass) reconstruction. RESULTS: Overall, in 195 lesions, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that the mean ratio between PSF(EANM) and OSEM data was 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.12] and 1.02 (95% CI 0.90-1.14) for SUV(max) and SUV(mean), respectively. No difference was noticed when analysing lesions based on their size and location or on patient body habitus and image noise. Ten patients (84 lesions) underwent two PET scans for response monitoring. Using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria, there was an almost perfect agreement between OSEM(PET1)/OSEM(PET2) (current standard) and OSEM(PET1)/PSF(EANM-PET2) or PSF(EANM-PET1)/OSEM(PET2) with kappa values of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), respectively. The use of PSF(allpass) either for pre- or post-treatment (i.e. OSEM(PET1)/PSF(allpass-PET2) or PSF(allpass-PET1)/OSEM(PET2)) showed considerably less agreement with kappa values of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67-0.83) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.78-0.94), respectively. CONCLUSION: Protocol-optimized images and compliance with EANM guidelines allowed for a reliable pre- and post-therapy evaluation when using different generation PET systems. These data obtained in NSCLC patients could be extrapolated to other solid tumours.

Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. METHODS: We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. FINDINGS: Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION: Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. FUNDING: Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

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.

Long-term effectiveness and treatment sequences in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer receiving atezolizumab plus chemotherapy: Results of the IFCT-1905 CLINATEZO real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has a tendency towards recurrence and limited survival. Standard-of-care in 1st-line is platinum-etoposide chemotherapy plus atezolizumab or durvalumab,based on landmarkclinical trials. METHODS: IFCT-1905 CLINATEZO is a nationwide, non-interventional, retrospectivestudy of patients with extensive-SCLC receivingatezolizumab plus chemotherapy as part of French Early Access Program. Objectives were to analyse effectiveness,safetyand subsequent treatments. RESULTS: The population analyzed included 518 patients who received atezolizumabin 65 participating centers. There were 66.2% male,mean age was 65.7 years; 89.1% had a performance status (PS) 0/1 and 26.6% brain metastases. Almost all(95.9%) were smokers. Fifty-five (10.6%) received at least 1 previous treatment. Median number of atezolizumab injections was 7.0 (range [1.0-48.0]) for a median duration of 4.9 months (95% CI 4.5-5.1). Atezolizumab was continued beyond progression in 122 patients (23.6%) for a median duration of 1.9 months (95% CI: [1.4-2.3]). Best objective response was complete and partialin 19 (3.9%) and 378 (77.1%)patients. Stable diseasewas observed in 50 patients (10.2%). Median follow-up was30.8 months (95% CI: [29.9-31.5]). Median overall survival (OS), 12-, 24-month OS rates were 11.3 months (95% CI: [10.1-12.4]), 46.7% (95% CI [42.3-50.9]) and 21.2% (95% CI [17.7-24.8]). Median real-world progression-free survival, 6-, 12-month rates were 5.2 months (95% CI [5.0-5.4]), 37.5% (95% CI [33.3-41.7]) and 15.2% (95% CI [12.2-18.6]). For patients with PS 0/1, median OS was 12.2 months (95% CI [11.0-13.5]). For patients with previous treatment, median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI [10.1-21.5]). Three-hundred-and-twenty-six patients(66.4%) received subsequent treatment and27 (5.2%) were still underatezolizumabat date of last news. CONCLUSIONS: IFCT-1905 CLINATEZO shows reproductibility, in real-life,ofIMpower-133survival outcomes, possibly attributed to selection of patients fit for this regimen, adoption of pragmatic approaches,including concurrent radiotherapy and treatment beyond progression.