Rejoinder for discussions on correct and logical causal inference for binary and time-to-event outcomes in randomized controlled trials.

Our paper differs from previous literature in two ways: 1.We think in terms of clinical consequences, what benefits patients, what harms patients. Our main message is: using a not logic-respecting efficacy measure can potentially harm patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), as we prove analytically, and demonstrate with the OAK blood-based tumor mutational burden (bTMB) study. 2.We follow nature, which mixes effects within each treatment arm. Our secondary message is that following nature to mix within each treatment arm first before calculating any efficacy measure between treatments resolves issues. For example, following natural mixing to prove ratio of time is logic-respecting avoids the issue that weights of efficacy measures are implicit solution to an equation that depends on the unknown prognostic effect. More importantly, coding subgroup mixable estimation (SEM) by mixing within each treatment arm first and then calculating efficacy will make marginal and conditional efficacy agree, for logic-respecting efficacy measures (be it a ratio or a difference), no matter the outcome is continuous, binary, or time-to-event. One does not have to choose between marginal and conditional.

Afatinib vs Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) is treated curatively; however, risk of recurrence remains high among some patients. The ERBB family blocker afatinib has shown efficacy in recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether afatinib therapy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with HNSCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, phase 3, double-blind randomized clinical trial (LUX-Head & Neck 2) studied 617 patients from November 2, 2011, to July 4, 2016. Patients who had complete response after CRT, comprising radiotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin, with or without resection of residual disease, for locoregionally advanced high- or intermediate-risk HNSCC of the oral cavity, hypopharynx, larynx, or oropharynx were included in the study. Data analysis was of the intention-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to treatment with afatinib (40 mg/d) or placebo, stratified by nodal status (N0-2a or N2b-3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 or 1). Treatment continued for 18 months or until disease recurrence, unacceptable adverse events, or patient withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was DFS, defined as time from the date of randomization to the date of tumor recurrence or secondary primary tumor or death from any cause. Secondary end points were DFS at 2 years, overall survival (defined as time from the date of randomization to death), and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 617 patients were studied (mean [SD] age, 58 [8.4] years; 528 male [85.6%]). Recruitment was stopped after a preplanned interim futility analysis on July 4, 2016, on recommendation from an independent data monitoring committee. Treatment was discontinued. Median DFS was 43.4 months (95% CI, 37.4 months to not estimable) in the afatinib group and not estimable (95% CI, 40.1 months to not estimable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.81-1.57; stratified log-rank test P = .48). The most common grade 3 and 4 drug-related adverse effects were acneiform rash (61 [14.8%] of 411 patients in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] of 206 patients in the placebo group), stomatitis (55 [13.4%] in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] in the placebo group), and diarrhea (32 [7.8%] in the afatinib group vs 1 [0.5%] in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study's findings indicate that treatment with afatinib after CRT did not improve DFS and was associated with more adverse events than placebo in patients with primary, unresected, clinically high- to intermediate-risk HNSCC. The use of adjuvant afatinib after CRT is not recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01345669.

Symptom and Quality of Life Improvement in LUX-Lung 8, an Open-Label Phase III Study of Second-Line Afatinib Versus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung After First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase III LUX-Lung 8 trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus erlotinib in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung progressing during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (QoL) in these patients are presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 795) were randomized 1:1 to oral afatinib (40 mg/d) or erlotinib (150 mg/d). PROs were collected (baseline, every 28 days until progression, 28 days after discontinuation) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire and lung cancer-specific module. The percentage of patients improved during therapy, time to deterioration (TTD), and changes over time were analyzed for prespecified lung cancer-related symptoms and global health status (GHS)/QoL. RESULTS: Questionnaire compliance was 77.3% to 99.0% and 68.7% to 99.0% with afatinib and erlotinib, respectively. Significantly more patients who received afatinib versus erlotinib experienced improved scores for GHS/QoL (36% vs. 28%; P = .041) and cough (43% vs. 35%; P = .029). Afatinib significantly delayed TTD in dyspnea (P = .008) versus erlotinib, but not cough (P = .256) or pain (P = .869). Changes in mean scores favored afatinib for cough (P = .0022), dyspnea (P = .0007), pain (P = .0224), GHS/QoL (P = .0320), and all functional scales. Differences in adverse events between afatinib and erlotinib, specifically diarrhea, did not affect GHS/QoL. CONCLUSION: In patients with SCC of the lung, second-line afatinib was associated with improved prespecified disease-related symptoms and GHS/QoL versus erlotinib, complementing PFS and OS benefits with afatinib.

Continued use of afatinib with the addition of cetuximab after progression on afatinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and acquired resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib.

OBJECTIVES: In a phase Ib trial, afatinib plus cetuximab demonstrated promising clinical activity (objective response rate [ORR]: 29%; median progression-free survival [PFS]: 4.7 months) in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib. Here, a separate cohort exploring afatinib plus cetuximab after progression on afatinib is reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC who progressed on erlotinib or gefitinib received afatinib 40mg daily until progression, followed by afatinib daily plus cetuximab 500mg/m2 every 2 weeks until progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). Endpoints included safety, ORR, and PFS. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received afatinib monotherapy. Two (5%) patients responded; median PFS was 2.7 months. Thirty-six patients transitioned to afatinib plus cetuximab. Four (11%) patients responded; median PFS was 2.9 months. Median PFS with afatinib plus cetuximab for patients who received afatinib monotherapy for ≥12 versus <12 weeks was 4.9 versus 1.8 months (p=0.0354), and for patients with T790M-positive versus T790M-negative tumors was 4.8 versus 1.8 months (p=0.1306). Fifty percent of patients receiving afatinib plus cetuximab experienced drug-related grade 3/4 AEs. The most frequent drug-related AEs (any grade) were diarrhea (70%), rash (49%), and fatigue (35%) with afatinib monotherapy and rash (69%), paronychia (39%), and dry skin (36%) with afatinib plus cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Sequential EGFR blockade with afatinib followed by afatinib plus cetuximab had a predictable safety profile and demonstrated modest activity in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC with resistance to erlotinib or gefitinib. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01090011.

Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a major unmet need for effective treatments in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. LUX-Lung 8 compared afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) with erlotinib (a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor), as second-line treatment for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. METHODS: We did this open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 183 cancer centres in 23 countries worldwide. We enrolled adults with stage IIIB or IV squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based-chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. The randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system and stratified by ethnic origin (eastern Asian vs non-eastern Asian). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). The key secondary endpoint was overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01523587. FINDINGS: 795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). Median follow-up at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival was 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-10·2), at which point enrolment was not complete. Progression free-survival at the primary analysis was significantly longer with afatinib than with erlotinib (median 2·4 months [95% CI 1·9-2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9-2·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00], p=0·0427). At the time of the primary analysis of overall survival (median follow-up 18·4 months [IQR 13·8-22·4]), overall survival was significantly greater in the afatinib group than in the erloinib group (median 7·9 months [95% CI 7·2-8·7] vs 6·8 months [5·9-7·8]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69-0·95], p=0·0077), as were progression-free survival (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9-2·1]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69-0·96], p=0·0103) and disease control (201 [51%] of 398 patients vs 157 [40%] of 397; p=0·0020). The proportion of patients with an objective response did not differ significantly between groups (22 [6%] vs 11 [3%]; p=0·0551). Tumour shrinkage occurred in 103 (26%) of 398 patients versus 90 (23%) of 397 patients. Adverse event profiles were similar in each group: 224 (57%) of 392 patients in the afatinib group versus 227 (57%) of 395 in the erlotinib group had grade 3 or higher adverse events. We recorded higher incidences of treatment-related grade 3 diarrhoea with afatinib (39 [10%] vs nine [2%]), of grade 3 stomatitis with afatinib (16 [4%] vs none), and of grade 3 rash or acne with erlotinib (23 [6%] vs 41 [10%]). INTERPRETATION: The significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with afatinib compared with erlotinib, along with a manageable safety profile and the convenience of oral administration suggest that afatinib could be an additional option for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Design and rationale for RE-VERSE AD: A phase 3 study of idarucizumab, a specific reversal agent for dabigatran.

Idarucizumab, a Fab fragment directed against dabigatran, produced rapid and complete reversal of the anticoagulation effect of dabigatran in animals and in healthy volunteers. The Study of the REVERSal Effects of Idarucizumab in Patients on Active Dabigatran (RE-VERSE AD™) is a global phase 3 prospective cohort study aimed at investigating idarucizumab in dabigatran-treated patients who present with uncontrollable or life-threatening bleeding, and in those requiring urgent surgery or intervention. We describe the rationale for, and design of the trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02104947).

Dual inhibition of EGFR with afatinib and cetuximab in kinase inhibitor-resistant EGFR-mutant lung cancer with and without T790M mutations.

UNLABELLED: EGFR-mutant lung cancers responsive to reversible EGFR inhibitors (gefitinib/erlotinib) develop acquired resistance, mediated by second-site EGFR T790M mutation in >50% of cases. Preclinically, afatinib (irreversible ErbB family blocker) plus cetuximab (anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody) overcomes T790M-mediated resistance. This phase Ib study combining afatinib and cetuximab enrolled heavily pretreated patients with advanced EGFR-mutant lung cancer and acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib. Patients provided post-acquired-resistance tumor samples for profiling EGFR mutations. Among 126 patients, objective response rate (overall 29%) was comparable in T790M-positive and T790M-negative tumors (32% vs. 25%; P = 0.341). Median progression-free survival was 4.7 months (95% confidence interval, 4.3-6.4), and the median duration of confirmed objective response was 5.7 months (range, 1.8-24.4). Therapy-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 44%/2% of patients. Afatinib-cetuximab demonstrated robust clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in EGFR-mutant lung cancers with acquired resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib, both with and without T790M mutations, warranting further investigation. SIGNIFICANCE: This article reports the results of a trial combining afatinib and cetuximab in patients with acquired resistance and details the first clinical proof-of-concept for the preclinical hypothesis that a significant proportion of tumors in patients with acquired resistance to gefitinib/erlotinib remain dependent on EGFR signaling for survival.