Improvement of differential diagnosis of lung cancer by use of multiple protein tumor marker combinations.

BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in hospitalized patients is crucial for appropriate treatment choice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STMs) and their combinations for the differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC subtypes. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2003, 10 established STMs were assessed retrospectively in 311 patients with NSCLC, 128 with SCLC prior systemic first-line therapy and 51 controls with benign lung diseases (BLD), by automatized electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technology. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of both individual and multiple STMs with corresponding sensitivities at 90% specificity. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD guidelines) were followed. RESULTS: CYFRA 21-1 (cytokeratin-19 fragment), CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) and NSE (neuron specific enolase) were significantly higher in all lung cancers vs BLD, reaching AUCs of 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.87), 0.78 (0.73-0.84), and 0.88 (0.84-0.93), respectively. By the three marker combination, the discrimination between benign and all malignant cases was improved resulting in an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.96). In NSCLC vs. BLD, CYFRA 21-1, CEA and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), 0.80 (0.74-0.85), and 0.85 (0.79-0.91). The three marker combination also improved the AUC: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89-0.96). In SCLC vs. BLD, ProGRP (pro-gastrin-releasing peptide) and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively, and slightly improved AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) when in combination. Finally, discrimination between SCLC and NSCLC was possible by ProGRP (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.81-0.91), NSE (AUC 0.83; 0.78-0.88) and CYFRA 21-1 (AUC 0.69; 0.64-0.75) and by the combination of the 3 STMs (AUC 0.93; 0.91-0.96), with a sensitivity of 88% at 90% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the power of STM combinations for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer from benign lesions and between histological lung cancer subtypes.

Lack of clinical utility of serum macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) for monitoring therapy response and estimating prognosis in advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major burden to global health and is still among the most frequent and most lethal malignant diseases. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in a variety of processes including tumorigenesis, formation of a tumor microenvironment and metastasis. It is therefore a potential prognostic biomarker in malignant diseases. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the applicability of MIF in serum samples as a biomarker in lung cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective approach, we analyzed the sera of 79 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 14 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) before the start of chemotherapy, as well as before the second and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively. Serum MIF levels were measured using a sandwich immunoassay with a sulfo-tag-labelled detection antibody, while pro-gastrin releasing peptide (proGRP) levels were determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: No difference in serum MIF levels between responders and non-responders to chemotherapy was observed at all time points, while proGRP levels were significantly lower in responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.012). No differences in biomarker levels depending on the histopathological classification of NSCLC patients was found. Moreover, in ROC curve analyses MIF was not able to distinguish between responders and non-responders to therapy. proGRP could differentiate between responders and non-responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) with sensitivities of 43% at 90% and 95% specificity, respectively. Likewise, proGRP yielded significantly longer survival times of patients with low proGRP concentrations before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) in Kaplan-Meier analyses, yet MIF showed no significant differences in survival times at all time points. Comparison with the biomarkers CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the same cohort showed that these established biomarkers clearly performed superior to MIF and proGRP. CONCLUSIONS: From the present results, there is no indication that serum MIF may serve as a biomarker in prognosis and monitoring of response to therapy in lung cancer. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the inclusion of a larger NSCLC and a smaller SCLC subgroup, the classical chemotherapeutic treatment, the use of a non-diagnostic immunoassay (RUO-test) for MIF measurement and the lack of a validation cohort. Strengths of the study are its highly standardized procedures concerning sample collection, preanalytic treatment, measurements and quality control of the laboratory assays.

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

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.

Soluble High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) Is a Promising Biomarker for Prediction of Therapy Response and Prognosis in Advanced Lung Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: High mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) is known for its significant elevation in a multitude of tumors and benign diseases. In this study, we investigated the relevance of soluble HMGB1 for the prediction and monitoring of therapy response as well as the estimation of prognosis in advanced lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, HMGB1 levels were assessed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the sera of 96 patients with advanced lung cancer (79 non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC); 14 small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), 3 Mesothelioma) prior to cycles 1, 2, and 3 of chemotherapy and correlated with radiological therapy response after 2 and 4 cycles as well as with overall survival. In addition, HMGB1 was compared with established tumor markers cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and neuron specific enolase (NSE). RESULTS: While pretherapeutic HMGB1 levels were not predictive or prognostically relevant in NSCLC patients, HMGB1 values prior to cycles 2 and 3 as well as kinetics from cycle 1 to 2 discriminated significantly between patients with good (remission and stable disease) and poor response (progression). Performance of HMGB1 in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of NSCLC patients, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.690 at cycle 2 and 0.794 at cycle 3 as well as sensitivities of 34.4% and 37.5%, respectively, for progression at 90% specificity, was comparable with the best tumor-associated antigen CYFRA 21-1 (AUCs 0.719 and 0.799; sensitivities of 37.5% and 41.7%, respectively). Furthermore, high concentrations of HMGB1 at cycles 2 and 3 were associated with shorter overall survival in NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Soluble HMGB1 is a promising biomarker for prediction of therapy response and prognosis in advanced NSCLC patients.

Atezolizumab in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases: Exploratory analyses of the phase III OAK study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab and docetaxel in patients with and without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases in the phase III OAK trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received 1200 mg atezolizumab or 75 mg/m2 docetaxel every 3 weeks until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical atezolizumab benefit. Patients with asymptomatic, treated supratentorial metastases were eligible. Patients had brain scans before enrollment; follow-up brain scans and treatment were required when clinically indicated. RESULTS: Approximately 14% of patients in each arm had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (61/425 in the atezolizumab arm and 62/425 in the docetaxel arm). Fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and treatment-related neurologic AEs were reported with atezolizumab than with docetaxel, regardless of history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. In patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases, median overall survival (OS) was longer with atezolizumab than with docetaxel (16.0 vs 11.9 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.13). Median OS was also longer with atezolizumab in patients without a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases (13.2 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63-0.88). Landmark analyses showed that patients with a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases had a lower probability of developing new symptomatic brain lesions with atezolizumab vs docetaxel at 6-24 months. Patients without a history had a lower probability with atezolizumab at 18-24+ months. CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab had an acceptable neurologic safety profile, showed a trend toward an OS benefit, and led to a prolonged time to radiographic identification of new symptomatic brain lesions compared with docetaxel in patients who had a history of asymptomatic, treated brain metastases. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT02008227.

Atezolizumab Treatment Beyond Progression in Advanced NSCLC: Results From the Randomized, Phase III OAK Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer immunotherapy may alter tumor biology such that treatment effects can extend beyond radiographic progression. In the randomized, phase III OAK study of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) versus docetaxel in advanced NSCLC, overall survival (OS) benefit with atezolizumab was observed in the overall patient population, without improvement in objective response rate (ORR) or progression-free survival (PFS). We examine the benefit-risk of atezolizumab treatment beyond progression (TBP). METHODS: Eight hundred fifty patients included in the OAK primary efficacy analysis were evaluated. Atezolizumab was continued until loss of clinical benefit. Docetaxel was administered until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity; no crossover to atezolizumab was allowed. ORR, PFS, post-PD OS, target lesion change, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: In atezolizumab-arm patients, ORR was 16% versus 14% and median PFS was 4.2 versus 2.8 months per immune-modified RECIST versus RECIST v1.1. The median post-PD OS was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.3-14.9) in 168 atezolizumab-arm patients continuing TBP, 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.0-12.1) in 94 patients switching to nonprotocol therapy, and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.9-3.4) in 70 patients receiving no further therapy. Of the atezolizumab TBP patients, 7% achieved a post-progression response in target lesions and 49% had stable target lesions. Atezolizumab TBP was not associated with increased safety risks. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this retrospective analysis, the post-PD efficacy and safety data from OAK are consistent with a positive benefit-risk profile of atezolizumab TBP in patients performing well clinically at the time of PD.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in OAK: A Phase III Study of Atezolizumab Versus Docetaxel in Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The randomized phase III OAK (a study of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel in participants with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC] who have failed platinum-containing therapy) trial investigated the anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab for advanced or metastatic, previously treated, NSCLC. Atezolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87; P = .0003; median OS, 13.8 vs. 9.6 months, respectively). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected to evaluate disease-related symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to support the finding of a survival benefit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first 850 patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). PROs were collected on day 1 of cycle 1, day 1 of every subsequent cycle, and at the end-of-treatment visit for patients who completed ≥ 1 baseline and 1 postbaseline PRO assessment. The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire and lung cancer module were used to assess PROs. RESULTS: Atezolizumab delayed the time to deterioration (TTD) in physical function (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98) and role function (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.00) and numerically improved patients' HRQoL from baseline compared with docetaxel. Atezolizumab also prolonged the TTD in chest pain (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .0823), although both arms showed an objective reduction relative to baseline. Overall, the patients had no clinically significant worsening in treatment-related symptoms, although the scores favored atezolizumab. CONCLUSION: These PRO data support the clinical benefit of atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Atezolizumab prolonged the TTD of patients' limitations in role and physical functions compared with docetaxel.

Updated Efficacy Analysis Including Secondary Population Results for OAK: A Randomized Phase III Study of Atezolizumab versus Docetaxel in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced NSCLC in the primary (n = 850) and secondary (n = 1225) efficacy populations of the randomized phase III OAK study (respectively referred to as the intention-to-treat [ITT] 850 [ITT850] and ITT1225) at an updated data cutoff were assessed. METHODS: Patients received atezolizumab, 1200 mg, or docetaxel, 75 mg/m2, intravenously every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the ITT population and programmed death-ligand 1-expressing subgroup. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of subsequent immunotherapy use in the docetaxel arm on the observed survival benefit with atezolizumab. RESULTS: Atezolizumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in the updated ITT850 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.89, p = 0.0006) and the ITT1225 (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.92, p = 0.0012) after minimum follow-up times of 26 and 21 months, respectively. Improved survival with atezolizumab was observed across programmed death-ligand 1 and histological subgroups. In the immunotherapy sensitivity analysis, the relative OS benefit with atezolizumab was slightly greater in the ITT850 (HR = 0.69) and ITT1225 (HR = 0.74) than the conventional OS estimate. Fewer patients receiving atezolizumab experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (14.9%) than did patients receiving docetaxel (42.4%); no grade 5 adverse events related to atezolizumab were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the updated ITT850 and initial ITT1225 analyses were consistent with those of the primary efficacy analysis demonstrating survival benefit with atezolizumab versus with docetaxel. Atezolizumab continued to demonstrate a favorable safety profile after longer treatment exposure and follow-up.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Parsatuzumab (Anti-EGFL7) or Placebo in Combination with Carboplatin, Paclitaxel, and Bevacizumab for First-Line Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The lack of efficacy associated with anti-EGFL7 combined with standard bevacizumab and chemotherapy in this phase II trial in non-small cell lung carcinoma is consistent with the lack of benefit observed in colorectal carcinoma, highlighting the challenge of enhancing the efficacy of VEGF inhibition in unselected populations.Future efforts with agents like anti-EGFL7 should be guided by advances in pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents. BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor-like domain 7 (EGFL7) is an extracellular matrix-associated protein that is upregulated during angiogenesis and supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of the anti-EGFL7 antibody, parsatuzumab, in combination with bevacizumab plus platinum-based therapy for advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). METHODS: Patients (n = 104) were randomized to either placebo or parsatuzumab (600 mg) in combination with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and carboplatin/paclitaxel, administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered for up to six cycles. Bevacizumab and parsatuzumab/placebo were administered for a maximum of 24 months. RESULTS: The progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratio (HR) was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.8; p = .047). The median PFS was 6.7 months for the parsatuzumab arm versus 8.1 months for the placebo arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.5-2.2; p = .847). The objective response rate (ORR) was 29% in the parsatuzumab arm and 56% in the placebo arm. Overall safety and tolerability were consistent with the established toxicity profile of bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first-line NS-NSCLC.

Tivantinib in Combination with Erlotinib versus Erlotinib Alone for EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: An Exploratory Analysis of the Phase 3 MARQUEE Study.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory subgroup analysis of the MARQUEE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib plus tivantinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with advanced, nonsquamous, EGFR and mesenchymal-epithelial transition inhibitor-naive NSCLC previously treated with one or two lines of systemic therapy were randomized to oral erlotinib (150 mg once daily) plus tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) or to erlotinib plus placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Among 1048 patients enrolled, 109 (10.4%) had EGFR-mutant disease. Erlotinib plus tivantinib improved progression-free survival in this subpopulation; median progression-free survival was 13.0 months for erlotinib plus tivantinib (n = 56) and 7.5 months for erlotinib plus placebo (n = 53) (hazard ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.77). Deaths occurred in 73 patients (67%), and median overall survival was 25.5 months in the erlotinib plus tivantinib arm versus 20.3 months in the erlotinib plus placebo arm (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-1.08). Common adverse events included diarrhea, rash, and asthenia. Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were more common with erlotinib plus tivantinib. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib plus tivantinib was tolerable and showed improved efficacy over erlotinib monotherapy in previously treated EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Phase III Trial of Ipilimumab Combined With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Advanced Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Purpose Patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This randomized, double-blind, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line ipilimumab or placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous NSCLC. Patients and Methods Patients with stage IV or recurrent chemotherapy-naïve squamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive paclitaxel and carboplatin plus blinded ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks on a phased induction schedule comprising six chemotherapy cycles, with ipilimumab or placebo from cycles 3 to 6 and then, after induction treatment, ipilimumab or placebo maintenance every 12 weeks for patients with stable disease or better. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients receiving at least one dose of blinded study therapy. Results Of 956 randomly assigned patients, 749 received at least one dose of blinded study therapy (chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, n = 388; chemotherapy plus placebo, n = 361). Median OS was 13.4 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab and 12.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.07; P = .25). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months for both groups (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), any-grade serious TRAEs, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab (51%, 33%, and 28%, respectively) than with chemotherapy plus placebo (35%, 10%, and 7%, respectively). Seven treatment-related deaths occurred with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, and one occurred with chemotherapy plus placebo. Conclusion The addition of ipilimumab to first-line chemotherapy did not prolong OS compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC. The safety profile of chemotherapy plus ipilimumab was consistent with that observed in previous lung and melanoma studies. Ongoing studies are evaluating ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab in this population.

Efficacy and Safety of Nintedanib Plus Docetaxel in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma: Complementary and Exploratory Analyses of the Phase III LUME-Lung 1 Study.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is a triple angiokinase inhibitor approved with docetaxel for adenocarcinoma non-small cell lung cancer after first-line chemotherapy (FLT). In the phase III LUME-Lung 1 study, overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with nintedanib/docetaxel than with placebo/docetaxel in all adenocarcinoma patients and those with time from start of FLT (TSFLT) <9 months. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to extend analyses from the LUME-Lung 1 study, specifically for adenocarcinoma patients, to explore the impact of clinically relevant characteristics on outcomes such as time to progression after FLT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Exploratory analyses were conducted of the overall and European LUME-Lung 1 adenocarcinoma population according to age, prior therapy, and tumor dynamics. Analyses also used TSFLT and time from end of FLT (TEFLT). RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib/docetaxel significantly improved OS in European patients independently of age or prior therapy. Analyses of several patient subgroups showed improvements in median OS: TSFLT <6 months, 9.5 versus 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.98); chemorefractory to FLT, 9.1 versus 6.9 months (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99); progressive disease (PD) as best response to FLT, 9.8 versus 6.3 months (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94); TEFLT ≤6 months, 11.3 versus 8.2 months (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92); and TEFLT <3 months, 11.0 versus 8.0 months (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Nintedanib/docetaxel demonstrated significant OS benefits in adenocarcinoma patients, which were more pronounced in patients with shorter TSFLT or TEFLT, or with PD as best response to FLT. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00805194.

Comprehensive Biomarker Analyses in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Prospectively Treated with the Polo-Like Kinase 1 Inhibitor BI2536.

BACKGROUND: Polo like kinase 1 (PLK1) is frequently upregulated in tumors and is thus viewed as a promising therapeutic target in various cancers. Several PLK1 inhibitors have recently been developed and clinically tested in solid cancers, albeit with limited success. So far, no predictive biomarkers for PLK1 inhibitors have been established. To this end, we conducted a post-hoc biomarker analysis of tumor samples from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with the PLK1 inhibitor BI2536 in a phase II study. METHODS: We analyzed formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surplus tumor tissue from 47 study patients using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and DNA sequencing of KRAS, EGFR, BRAF, and PIK3CA. RESULTS: KRAS-mutated patients showed numerically prolonged progression-free survival, but statistical significance was not established. Interestingly, when pathways rather than single genes were analyzed, a positive correlation between IHC staining of activated ERK (p-ERK) and mutated KRAS was detected, whereas KRAS mutation status was found to be negatively correlated with activated AKT (p-AKT). CONCLUSION: With this hypothesis-generating study in BI2531-treated patients, we could not establish a correlation between KRAS mutations and relevant clinical endpoints. Future clinical trials with concomitant systematic biosampling and comprehensive molecular analyses are required to identify biomarkers predictive for response to PLK1 inhibitors.

Metronomic treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with daily oral vinorelbine - a Phase I trial.

MICRO-ABSTRACT: In a Phase I dose-finding study of metronomic daily oral vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, a recommended dose was established for this therapeutic approach. In addition, this trial revealed promising efficacy data and an acceptable tolerability profile. The observed vinorelbine blood concentrations suggest continuous anti-angiogenic coverage. INTRODUCTION: We present a Phase I dose-finding study investigating metronomic daily oral vinorelbine (Navelbine® Oral, NVBo) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III/IV NSCLC received daily NVBo at fixed dose levels of 20-50 mg/d for 21 days of each 4-week cycle. Primary end point was the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and tolerability. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with advanced NSCLC were enrolled. Most of them were extensively pretreated. Daily NVBo was well tolerated up to 30 mg/d. At 40 mg/d, two of five patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three of six patients had DLTs at the 50 mg/d level. The recommended dose was established at 30 mg/d in cycle 1, with escalation to 40 mg/d in cycle 2, if tolerated. Pharmacokinetic analyses showed continuous blood exposure over 21 days and only marginal accumulation. The tolerability profile was acceptable (all dose levels - all grades: decreased appetite 33%, diarrhea 33%, leukopenia 33%, nausea 30%, vomiting 26%; ≥grade 3: leukopenia 30%, lymphopenia 19%, neutropenia 19%, febrile neutropenia 15%). Disease control rate, OS and TTP signaled a treatment effect. CONCLUSION: Daily metronomic NVBo therapy in extensively pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC is feasible and safe at the recommended dose of 30 mg/d. Escalation to 40 mg/d in the second cycle is possible. The blood concentrations of vinorelbine after daily metronomic dosing reached lower peaks than intravenous or oral conventional dosing. Blood concentrations were consistent with anti-angiogenic or immune modulating pharmacologic properties of vinorelbine. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this novel approach in specific patient populations.

Circulating heregulin level is associated with the efficacy of patritumab combined with erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Patritumab is a fully human anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) antibody that blocks activation by its ligand, heregulin (HRG). Preclinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of patritumab in aberrantly high HRG-expressing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the phase II randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study HERALD (n=212 patients with NSCLC), patritumab plus erlotinib did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus erlotinib. The current study examined whether soluble HRG (sHRG) level in serum correlated with the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum was obtained from participants prior to treatment (n=202). sHRG level was measured using a validated quantitative immune assay, and correlations with survival were blindly assessed. RESULTS: sHRG level was various (-1346-11,772pg/mL). Participants were divided into the sHRG-high or -low subgroups at the concentration defining near the third quartile, 980pg/mL. Patritumab plus erlotinib significantly improved PFS relative to placebo in the sHRG-high subgroup (n=46, hazard ratio 0.42 [0.19-0.96], p=0.0327). In contrast, the HRG-low subgroup (n=148) had no improvement in PFS with patritumab. CONCLUSION: sHRG seems to be a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib in NSCLC patients.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Anti-angiogenic-specific adverse events in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with nintedanib and docetaxel.

OBJECTIVES: LUME-Lung 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial investigating nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly improved with nintedanib+docetaxel in the overall population and overall survival was significantly improved in the pre-specified analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the frequency of characteristic adverse events (AEs) commonly seen with existing anti-angiogenic agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The incidence and intensity of AEs were evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication (N=1307) and for the two main histologies: adenocarcinoma (n=653) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC; n=553). AEs of special interest were analyzed by category, preferred term, and worst CTCAE grade and included perforation, hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events, and skin disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The incidence of patients with all-grade gastrointestinal (GI) perforations was low and balanced between arms (0.5% in both) and across histologies; the incidence of non-GI perforations was 1.2% with nintedanib+docetaxel versus 0.2% with placebo+docetaxel. The incidence of some events was higher with nintedanib+docetaxel versus placebo+docetaxel; hypertension (3.5% vs 0.9%), rash (11.0% vs 8.1%), and cutaneous adverse reactions (13.0% vs 10.7%). Rash and cutaneous adverse reactions were predominantly Grade 1-2 with both treatments. The incidence of all-grade bleeding was also slightly higher in nintedanib+docetaxel-treated patients (14.1% vs 11.6%) driven by between-treatment differences in the SCC subpopulation; most events were Grade 1-2. The proportion of patients with a thromboembolic event was low and comparable between arms for all grades (5.1% vs 4.6%) and Grade ≥3 (2.1% vs 3.1%). Safety evaluation of the LUME-Lung 1 study showed that the frequency of AEs commonly associated with other anti-angiogenic agents was lower with nintedanib+docetaxel. Survival benefits from addition of nintedanib to docetaxel in patients with adenocarcinoma after first-line therapy can be achieved alongside a manageable safety profile.

Clinical Translation and Validation of a Predictive Biomarker for Patritumab, an Anti-human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 3 (HER3) Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients With Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: During early clinical development, prospective identification of a predictive biomarker and validation of an assay method may not always be feasible. Dichotomizing a continuous biomarker measure to classify responders also leads to challenges. We present a case study of a prospective-retrospective approach for a continuous biomarker identified after patient enrollment but defined prospectively before the unblinding of data. An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach and the challenges encountered in its practical application are also provided. METHODS: HERALD (NCT02134015) was a double-blind, phase 2 study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) randomized to erlotinib with placebo or with high or low doses of patritumab, a monoclonal antibody targeted against human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3). While the primary objective was to assess safety and progression-free survival (PFS), a secondary objective was to determine a single predictive biomarker hypothesis to identify subjects most likely to benefit from the addition of patritumab. Although not identified as the primary biomarker in the study protocol, on the basis of preclinical results from 2 independent laboratories, expression levels of the HER3 ligand heregulin (HRG) were prospectively declared the predictive biomarker before data unblinding but after subject enrollment. An assay to measure HRG mRNA was developed and validated. Other biomarkers, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status, were also evaluated in an exploratory fashion. The cutoff value for high vs. low HRG mRNA levels was set at the median delta threshold cycle. A maximum likelihood analysis was performed to evaluate the provisional cutoff. The relationship of HRG values to PFS hazard ratios (HRs) was assessed as a measure of internal validation. Additional NSCLC samples were analyzed to characterize HRG mRNA distribution. RESULTS: The subgroup of patients with high HRG mRNA levels ("HRG-high") demonstrated clinical benefit from patritumab treatment with HRs of 0.37 (P = 0.0283) and 0.29 (P = 0.0027) in the high- and low-dose patritumab arms, respectively. However, only 102 of the 215 randomized patients (47.4%) had sufficient tumor samples for HRG mRNA measurement. Maximum likelihood analysis showed that the provisional cutoff was within the optimal range. In the placebo arm, the HRG-high subgroup demonstrated worse prognosis compared with HRG-low. A continuous relationship was observed between increased HRG mRNA levels and lower HR. Additional NSCLC samples (N = 300) demonstrated a similar unimodal distribution to that observed in this study, suggesting that the defined cutoff may be applicable to future NSCLC studies. CONCLUSIONS: The prospective-retrospective approach was successful in clinically validating a probable predictive biomarker. Post hoc in vitro studies and statistical analyses permitted further testing of the underlying assumptions. However, limitations of this analysis include the incomplete collection of adequate tumor tissue and a lack of stratification. In a phase 3 study, findings are being confirmed, and the HRG cutoff value is being further refined. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER: NCT02134015.

Phase III Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tivantinib (ARQ 197) Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib Alone in Previously Treated Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Tivantinib, a MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated increased anticancer activity in preclinical and early clinical studies when combined with erlotinib. Our study aimed to confirm efficacy and safety of the combination in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with one to two systemic regimens, including a platinum doublet, were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib 150 mg daily plus oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily (E + T) or erlotinib plus placebo (E + P) until disease progression. Tumor specimens were evaluated for EGFR and KRAS mutations, MET expression, and MET gene amplification. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), OS in molecular subgroups, and safety. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1,048 patients and was discontinued for futility at the interim analysis. OS did not improve with E + T versus E + P (median OS, 8.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .81), even though PFS increased (median PFS, 3.6 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested OS improvement in patients with high MET expression (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.01). Most common adverse events occurring with E + T versus E + P were rash (33.1% v 37.3%, respectively), diarrhea (34.6% v 41.0%), asthenia or fatigue (43.5% v 38.1%), and neutropenia (grade 3 to 4; 8.5% v 0.8%). CONCLUSION: E + T was well tolerated and increased PFS but did not improve OS in the overall nonsquamous NSCLC population.