Overall Survival From the EORTC LCG-1613 APPLE Trial of Osimertinib Versus Gefitinib Followed by Osimertinib in Advanced EGFR-Mutant Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Osimertinib has been established as a standard of care for patients with common sensitizing EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) although the sequential approach (first-generation inhibitor gefitinib followed by osimertinib) has not been formally compared. The phase II APPLE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02856893) enrolled 156 treatment-naïve patients, and two treatment strategies were evaluated: osimertinib up front or the sequential treatment approach with gefitinib up front followed by osimertinib at the time of progression, either molecular progression (detection of plasma T790M resistance mutation) regardless of the radiologic status or just at the time of radiologic progression. Patients' characteristics were well balanced, except for the higher proportion of baseline brain metastases in the sequential approach (29% v 19%). Per protocol, 73% of patients switched to osimertinib in the sequential arm. Up-front treatment with osimertinib was associated with a lower risk of brain progression versus the sequential approach (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54 [90% CI, 0.34 to 0.86]), but a comparable overall survival was observed between both strategies (HR, 1.01 [90% CI, 0.61 to 1.68]), with the 18-month survival probability of 84% and 82.3%, respectively. The APPLE trial suggests that a sequential treatment approach is associated with more frequent progression in the brain but a similar survival in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Blood tumor mutational burden and response to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: KEYNOTE-782.

BACKGROUND: First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefit in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) regardless of tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB) status. Blood tumor mutational burden (bTMB), assessed using plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), may be a surrogate for tTMB. The KEYNOTE-782 study evaluated the correlation of bTMB with the efficacy of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in NSCLC. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC received pembrolizumab 200 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and investigator's choice of carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 for 4 cycles, then pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed for ≤31 additional cycles every 3 weeks. Study objectives were to evaluate the association of baseline bTMB with objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment; primary), progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1 by investigator assessment), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs; all secondary). A next-generation sequencing assay (GRAIL LLC) with a ctDNA panel that included lung cancer-associated and immune gene targets was used to measure bTMB. RESULTS: 117 patients were enrolled; median time from first dose to data cutoff was 19.3 months (range, 1.0-35.5). ORR was 40.2 % (95 % CI 31.2-49.6 %), median PFS was 7.2 months (95 % CI 5.6-9.8) and median OS was 18.1 months (95 % CI 13.5-25.6). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 113 patients (96.6 %; grade 3-5, n = 56 [47.9 %]). Of patients with evaluable bTMB (n = 101), the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for continuous bTMB to discriminate response was 0.47 (95 % CI 0.36-0.59). Baseline bTMB was not associated with PFS or OS (posterior probabilities of positive association: 16.8 % and 7.8 %, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: AEs were consistent with the established safety profile of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in NSCLC. Baseline bTMB did not show evidence of an association with efficacy.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and previously treated gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from two expansion cohorts of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial (COSMIC-021).

Background: Cabozantinib is approved for previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and has been investigated in gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJ). Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is approved for unresectable or metastatic HCC untreated with prior systemic therapy. We evaluated efficacy and safety of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab in aHCC previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy or previously treated GC/GEJ. Methods: COSMIC-021 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03170960) is an open-label, phase 1b study in solid tumours with a dose-escalation stage followed by tumour-specific expansion cohorts, including aHCC (cohort 14) and GC/GEJ (cohort 15). Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with measurable locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent disease per RECIST version 1.1. Patients received oral cabozantinib 40 mg daily and intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg once every 3 weeks until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1. Findings: Patients were screened between February 14, 2019, and May 7, 2020, and 61 (30 aHCC, 31 GC/GEJ) were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. Median duration of follow-up was 31.2 months (IQR 28.5-32.7) for aHCC and 30.4 months (28.7-31.9) for GC/GEJ. Objective response rate was 13% (4/30, 95% CI 4-31) for aHCC and 0% (95% CI 0-11) for GC/GEJ. Six (20%) aHCC patients and three (10%) GC/GEJ patients had treatment-related adverse events resulting in discontinuation of either study drug. Interpretation: Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab had clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in aHCC previously untreated with systemic anticancer therapy. Clinical activity of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab was minimal in previously treated GC/GEJ. Funding: Exelixis, Inc., Alameda, CA, USA.

Data-Driven Personalized Care in Lung Cancer: Scoping Review and Clinical Recommendations on Performance Status and Activity Level of Patients With Lung Cancer Using Wearable Devices.

PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a crucial assessment for research and clinical practice in lung cancer (LC), including its usage for the assessment of the suitability and toxicity of treatment or eligibility for clinical trials of patients with LC. These PS assessments are subjective and lead to substantial discrepancies between observers. To improve the objectivity of PS assessments, Electronic Activity Monitoring devices (EAMs) are increasingly used in oncology, but how these devices are used for PS assessments in LC is an issue that remains unclear. The goal of this study is to address the challenges and opportunities of the use of digital tools to support PS assessments in patients with LC. METHODS: The literature review followed PRISMA-ScR methodology. Searches were performed in the ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, ACM, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed databases. Furthermore, a panel discussion was performed to address the clinical use cases. RESULTS: Thirty-two publications were found. Most of the studies used wrist accelerometry-based wearables (59%) and monitored sleep activity (SA; 28%) or physical activity (PA; 72%). Critical findings include positive usefulness of the use of wearables to categorize moderate-to-vigorous/light PA, which was associated with better sleep and health. In addition, steps and time awake immobile were found to be associated with risk of hospitalization and survival. Use cases identified included the health assessment of patients and clinical research. CONCLUSION: There are positive experiences in the use of EAM to complement PS assessment in LC. However, there is a need for adapting thresholds to the particularities of patients with LC, for example, differentiating moderate-to-vigorous and light. Moreover, developing methodologies combining PS assessments and the use of EAM adapted to clinical and research practice is needed.

A phase Ib/II study of galunisertib in combination with nivolumab in solid tumors and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this phase Ib/II open-label study, tumor immune suppression was targeted in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors and patients with recurrent/refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using galunisertib with nivolumab. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, and were treatment-naive for anti-programmed cell death-1, its ligand, or transforming growth factor ß receptor 1 kinase inhibitors. Phase Ib was an open-label, dose-escalation assessment of the safety and tolerability of galunisertib with nivolumab in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Phase II evaluated the safety of galunisertib with nivolumab in NSCLC patients who had received prior platinum-based treatment but were immuno-oncology agent-naive. RESULTS: This trial was conducted between October 2015 and August 2020. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in phase I. In the phase II NSCLC cohort (n = 25), patients received 150 mg twice daily galunisertib (14 days on/14 days off dosing schedule for all phases) plus nivolumab at 3 mg/kg (intravenously every 2 weeks). In this phase, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n = 9, 36%), fatigue (n = 8, 32%), and decreased appetite (n = 7, 28%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs were observed. Six (24%) patients had confirmed partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) had stable disease; 1 additional patient had confirmed PR after initial pseudo-progression. The median duration of response was 7.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.75, NR). Among the 7 responders, including the delayed responder, 1 had high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%). The median progression-free survival was 5.26 months (95% CI: 1.77, 9.20) and the median overall survival was 11.99 months (95% CI: 8.15, NR). Interferon gamma response genes were induced post-treatment and cell adhesion genes were repressed, although the association of these observations with tumor response and clinical outcomes was not statistically powered due to limited samples available. CONCLUSIONS: The study met its primary endpoint as galunisertib combined with nivolumab was well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed in a subset of patients in the Phase 2 NSCLC cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02423343; 22.04.2015).

Profile and outcome of cancer patients enrolled in contemporary phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Phase I trials historically involved heavily pretreated patients (pts) with no more effective therapeutic options available and with poor expected outcomes. There are scare data regarding profile and outcomes of pts enrolled into modern phase I trials. Here, we sought to provide an overview of pts' profile and outcome into phase I trials at Gustave Roussy (GR). METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective study, including all pts enrolled into phase I trials at GR from 2017 to 2021. Data regarding pts' demographics, tumour types, investigational treatments and survival outcomes were collected. RESULTS: In total, 9482 pts were referred for early phase trials; 2478 pts were screened, among which 449 (18.1%) failed screening; 1693 pts finally received at least one treatment dose as part of a phase I trial. Median age of pts was 59 years old (range, 18-88) and most common tumour types included gastrointestinal (25.3%), haematological (15%), lung (13.6%), genitourinary (10.5%) and gynaecologic cancers (9.4%). Amongst all pts treated and evaluable for response (1634 pts), objective response rate was 15.9% and disease control rate was 45.4%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.3; 2.8) and 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.7; 13.6). CONCLUSION: As compared with historical data, our study shows that outcomes of pts included into modern phase I trials have improved and that these trials constitute nowadays a valid and safe therapeutic option. These updated data provide facts for adapting the methodology, role and place of phase I trials over the next years.

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m2, and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. FUNDING: PharmaMar.

High-dose alectinib for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the Blood First Assay Screening Trial.

Introduction: This paper presents results from Cohort B (rearranged during transfection [RET], fusion-positive) of the Blood First Assay Screening Trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) screened for genetic alterations using blood-based next-generation sequencing. Material and methods: Adults with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC received alectinib 900 mg twice daily (BID) in Phase I. Enrolment closed prematurely with Phase II uninitiated. Results: Among eight treated patients, confirmed best overall responses in evaluable patients were stable disease (4/5) and progressive disease (1/5). One dose-limiting toxicity (death, unknown cause) was considered by the investigator to be related to treatment and underlying disease. Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in five patients, and SAEs that may be related to treatment occurred in two patients. Conclusions: Alectinib showed limited activity in advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC, and further investigation was not conducted due to the development of selective RET inhibitors pralsetinib and selpercatinib. No new safety signals were observed, and the safety profile of alectinib was in line with previous reports at the 600 mg BID dose.

Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Induction Followed by Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Maintenance in Squamous Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer (ABOUND.sqm): A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated maintenance nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive squamous non-small-cell lung cancer received four 21-day cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 as induction therapy. Patients without disease progression after induction were randomized 2:1 to maintenance nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 420 patients had received induction therapy; 202 (nab-paclitaxel plus BSC, 136; BSC, 66) had received maintenance therapy. Enrollment was discontinued after a preplanned interim futility analysis (patients could remain in the study at the investigator's discretion). The median PFS was 3.12 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 2.60 months for BSC; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.19; P = .36). The median OS (median follow-up, 24.2 months) was 17.18 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; nominal P = .07). An updated analysis (median follow-up, 28.4 months) revealed a median OS of 17.61 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; nominal P = .037). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events for the entire study were neutropenia (53.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 50.0% [BSC]) and anemia (33.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 32.3% [BSC]). Only peripheral neuropathy had occurred in ≥ 5% of patients during maintenance therapy (13.1%; nab-paclitaxel plus BSC). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ABOUND.sqm did not meet the primary endpoint of PFS. An updated OS analysis revealed a trend favoring nab-paclitaxel plus BSC.

Erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and activating EGFR mutations (BELIEF): an international, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib improves the outcomes of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. The coexistence of the T790M resistance mutation with another EGFR mutation in treatment-naive patients has been associated with a shorter progression-free survival to EGFR inhibition than in the absence of the T790M mutation. To test this hypothesis clinically, we developed a proof-of-concept study, in which patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC were treated with the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab, stratified by the presence of the pretreatment T790M mutation. METHODS: BELIEF was an international, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 29 centres in eight European countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had treatment-naive, pathologically confirmed stage IIIB or stage IV lung adenocarcinoma with a confirmed, activating EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation). Patients received oral erlotinib 150 mg per day and intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days and were tested centrally for the pretreatment T790M resistance mutation with a peptide nucleic acid probe-based real-time PCR. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and was stratified into two parallel substudies according to the centrally confirmed pretreatment T790M mutation status of enrolled patients (T790M positive or negative). The safety analysis was done in all patients that have received at least one dose of trial treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01562028. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2012, and Oct 28, 2014, 109 patients were enrolled and included in the efficacy analysis. 37 patients were T790M mutation positive and 72 negative. The overall median progression-free survival was 13·2 months (95% CI 10·3-15·5), with a 12 month progression-free survival of 55% (95% CI 45-64). The primary endpoint was met only in substudy one (T790M-positive patients). In the T790M-positive group, median progression-free survival was 16·0 months (12·7 to not estimable), with a 12 month progression-free survival of 68% (50-81), whereas in the T790M-negative group, median progression-free survival was 10·5 months (9·4-14·2), with a 12 month progression-free survival of 48% (36-59). Of 106 patients included in the safety analysis, five had grade 4 adverse events (one acute coronary syndrome, one biliary tract infection, one other neoplasms, and two colonic perforations) and one died due to sepsis. INTERPRETATION: The BELIEF trial provides further evidence of benefit for the combined use of erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with NSCLC harbouring activating EGFR mutations. FUNDING: European Thoracic Oncology Platform, Roche.

Chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma: An update.

Cholangiocarcinomas (bile duct cancers) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies arising from the epithelial cells of the intrahepatic, perihilar and extrahepatic bile ducts. Patients diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma must be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team and be treated with individualized management. First of all, it is very important to define the potential resectability of the tumor because surgery is the main therapeutic option for these patients. Overall, cholangiocarcinomas have a very poor prognosis. The 5-year survival rate is 5%-10%. In cases with a potentially curative surgery, 5-year survival rates of 25%-30% are reported. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the cure rate from surgery, exploring the survival benefit of any adjuvant strategy. It is difficult to clarify the role of adjuvant treatment in localized and locally advanced cholangiocarcinomas. There are limited data and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiation in patients with resected biliary tract cancer is poorly defined. The most relevant studies in the adjuvant setting are one from Japan, the well known ESPAC-3 and BILCAP from the United Kingdom and a meta-analysis. We show the results of these trials. According to medical oncology guidelines, postoperative adjuvant therapy is widely recommended for all patients with intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma who have microscopically positive resection margins, as well as for those with a complete resection but node-positive disease. Clinical trials are ongoing. The locally advanced cholangiocarcinoma setting includes a heterogeneous mix of patients: (1) patients who have had surgery but with macroscopic residual disease; (2) patients with locally recurrent disease after potentially curative treatment; and (3) patients with locally unresectable disease at presentation. In these patients, surgery is not an option and chemoradiation therapy can prolong overall survival and provide control of symptoms due to local tumor effects. Nowadays, no neoadjuvant therapy can be considered a standard approach for the treatment of patients with cholangiocarcinoma. There are promising results and randomized trials are needed in patients with a metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. In systemic therapy, no single drug or combination has consistently increased median survival beyond the expected 8-12 mo. It is always recommended that patients enrol in clinical trials. Clinical trials have shown that the more standard chemotherapy for a first line regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (or oxaliplatin as a potentially better tolerated agent) is superior to gemcitabine alone. Leucovorin-modulated 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine monotherapy or single agent gemcitabine are reasonable options for patients with a borderline performance status. After progression in patients with an adequate performance status, active regimens that could be considered include gemcitabine plus capecitabine, or erlotinib plus bevacizumab, for second line treatment.