Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, may have efficacy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer who do not have disease progression after standard concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients to receive durvalumab at a dose of 1500 mg, durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab at a dose of 75 mg (four doses only), or placebo every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. Randomization was stratified according to disease stage (I or II vs. III) and receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation (yes vs. no). Results of the first planned interim analysis of the two primary end points of overall survival and progression-free survival (assessed on the basis of blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) with durvalumab as compared with placebo (data cutoff date, January 15, 2024) are reported; results in the durvalumab-tremelimumab group remain blinded. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were assigned to the durvalumab group, 200 to the durvalumab-tremelimumab group, and 266 to the placebo group. Durvalumab therapy led to significantly longer overall survival than placebo (median, 55.9 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 37.3 to not reached] vs. 33.4 months [95% CI, 25.5 to 39.9]; hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 98.321% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P = 0.01), as well as to significantly longer progression-free survival (median 16.6 months [95% CI, 10.2 to 28.2] vs. 9.2 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.9]; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.76; 97.195% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P = 0.02). The incidence of adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 or 4 was 24.4% among patients receiving durvalumab and 24.2% among patients receiving placebo; adverse events led to discontinuation in 16.4% and 10.6% of the patients, respectively, and led to death in 2.7% and 1.9%. Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis with a maximum grade of 3 or 4 occurred in 3.1% of the patients in the durvalumab group and in 2.6% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with durvalumab led to significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than placebo among patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADRIATIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03703297.).

Repotrectinib in ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The early-generation ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that are approved for the treatment of ROS1 fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have antitumor activity, but resistance develops in tumors, and intracranial activity is suboptimal. Repotrectinib is a next-generation ROS1 TKI with preclinical activity against ROS1 fusion-positive cancers, including those with resistance mutations such as ROS1 G2032R. METHODS: In this registrational phase 1-2 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of repotrectinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, including ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. The primary efficacy end point in the phase 2 trial was confirmed objective response; efficacy analyses included patients from phase 1 and phase 2. Duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety were secondary end points in phase 2. RESULTS: On the basis of results from the phase 1 trial, the recommended phase 2 dose of repotrectinib was 160 mg daily for 14 days, followed by 160 mg twice daily. Response occurred in 56 of the 71 patients (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68 to 88) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had not previously received a ROS1 TKI; the median duration of response was 34.1 months (95% CI, 25.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 35.7 months (95% CI, 27.4 to could not be estimated). Response occurred in 21 of the 56 patients (38%; 95% CI, 25 to 52) with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who had previously received one ROS1 TKI and had never received chemotherapy; the median duration of response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to could not be estimated), and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 19.6). Ten of the 17 patients (59%; 95% CI, 33 to 82) with the ROS1 G2032R mutation had a response. A total of 426 patients received the phase 2 dose; the most common treatment-related adverse events were dizziness (in 58% of the patients), dysgeusia (in 50%), and paresthesia (in 30%), and 3% discontinued repotrectinib owing to treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Repotrectinib had durable clinical activity in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, regardless of whether they had previously received a ROS1 TKI. Adverse events were mainly of low grade and compatible with long-term administration. (Funded by Turning Point Therapeutics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb; TRIDENT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03093116.).

Amivantamab plus Lazertinib in Previously Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR-related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.).

Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Resected EGFR-Mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with resected, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated, stage IB to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adjuvant osimertinib therapy, with or without previous adjuvant chemotherapy, resulted in significantly longer disease-free survival than placebo in the ADAURA trial. We report the results of the planned final analysis of overall survival. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or placebo until disease recurrence was observed, the trial regimen was completed (3 years), or a discontinuation criterion was met. The primary end point was investigator-assessed disease-free survival among patients with stage II to IIIA disease. Secondary end points included disease-free survival among patients with stage IB to IIIA disease, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Of 682 patients who underwent randomization, 339 received osimertinib and 343 received placebo. Among patients with stage II to IIIA disease, the 5-year overall survival was 85% in the osimertinib group and 73% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.73; P<0.001). In the overall population (patients with stage IB to IIIA disease), the 5-year overall survival was 88% in the osimertinib group and 78% in the placebo group (overall hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95.03% CI, 0.34 to 0.70; P<0.001). One new serious adverse event, pneumonia related to coronavirus disease 2019, was reported after the previously published data-cutoff date (the event was not considered by the investigator to be related to the trial regimen, and the patient fully recovered). Adjuvant osimertinib had a safety profile consistent with that in the primary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant osimertinib provided a significant overall survival benefit among patients with completely resected, EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA NSCLC. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02511106.).

Updated overall survival and ctDNA analysis in patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with lazertinib in the phase 1/2 LASER201 study.

BACKGROUND: Lazertinib is a potent, irreversible, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with significant efficacy in patients with EGFR T790M-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This is the final overall survival (OS) report from the phase 1/2 LASER201 study in patients with advanced NSCLC with disease progression on or after prior EGFR TKI therapy. METHODS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 20 years, with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC and previous therapy with EGFR TKI. Patients in this integrated analysis received oral lazertinib 240 mg/day. Endpoints included efficacy and safety; exploratory analyses included associations between circulating EGFR-mutant tumor DNA (ctDNA) and efficacy parameters. RESULTS: This integrated analysis included 78 patients in Korea who received second- or later-line lazertinib. The median OS was 38.9 months; estimated survival rates at 12, 24, and 36 months were 89.5%, 73.9%, and 52.8%, respectively. The cumulative 12-month incidence of central nervous system progression was 9.4%. EGFR-mutant ctDNA was detected in 46 patients (62.2%) at baseline. The presence of ctDNA at baseline significantly predicted progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), and OS. PFS, response rate, and DCR were significantly associated with EGFR-mutant ctDNA clearance at cycle 3; PFS and OS were significantly associated with ctDNA clearance at cycle 5. The safety profile of lazertinib 240 mg/day was consistent with previous findings. CONCLUSIONS: Lazertinib is a promising treatment option for patients with EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC following disease progression on prior EGFR-directed TKIs. Patients in LASER201 experienced prolonged OS, regardless of their EGFR mutation, brain metastases, or prior brain radiation status. Clearance of plasma EGFR mutations after lazertinib was associated with patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03046992.

Efficacy in patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer treated with dacomitinib who had skin adverse events: post hoc analyses from ARCHER 1050.

Aim: We investigated association between skin adverse events (AEs) and efficacy with dacomitinib in patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: Post hoc analyses from ARCHER 1050 evaluated efficacy in patients who did and did not experience grade ≥2 skin AEs with dacomitinib. Landmark analyses were performed at 3 and 6 months.Results: In patients who had skin AEs (72.2%) vs. those who did not (27.7%), median progression-free survival was 16.0 vs. 9.2 months, median overall survival (OS) was 37.7 vs. 21.6 months, and objective response rate was 80.2 vs. 61.5%; OS was improved at 3 and 6 months landmark analyses.Conclusion: Presence of grade ≥2 skin AEs was associated with numerically improved efficacy and represents a valuable biomarker of treatment outcome with dacomitinib in patients with advanced NSCLC.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01774721 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The ARCHER 1050 study assessed how the drugs called dacomitinib and gefitinib affected people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had mutations in the EGFR gene. In this study, people who were treated with dacomitinib lived longer without their cancer getting worse than people who were treated with gefitinib. Skin adverse reactions were higher in people who were treated with dacomitinib than gefitinib. In this follow-up analysis, researchers wanted to see if the treatment effect of dacomitinib was different between people who had skin adverse reactions and people who did not have skin adverse reactions after treatment with dacomitinib. The results from this analysis showed that after treatment with dacomitinib, half of the people who had skin adverse reactions lived for 16.0 months, and half of the people who did not have skin adverse reactions lived for 9.2 months without their cancer getting worse. This study also showed that half of the people who had skin adverse reactions lived for 37.7 months, and half of the people who did not have skin adverse reactions lived for 21.6 months. In summary, the results from this study showed that the treatment effect of dacomitinib was better in people who had skin adverse reactions after treatment with dacomitinib. Therefore, skin adverse reactions can be a marker of better treatment effect in people with NSCLC who had mutations in the EGFR gene when treated with dacomitinib.

A randomized Phase 2 study to compare erlotinib with or without bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated whether an addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This is an open-label, multicenter, randomized Phase 2 study in South Korea. Chemonaïve patients with Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with EGFR 19 deletion or L858R mutation were eligible. Asymptomatic brain metastasis (BM) was enrolled without local treatment. Patients received either erlotinib plus bevacizumab or erlotinib. RESULTS: Between December 2016 and March 2019, 127 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n = 64) or erlotinib (n = 63). Fifty-nine (46.5%) patients had baseline BM. Fewer patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab arm received radiotherapy for BM than in the erlotinib arm (10.3% vs. 40.0%). A trend toward longer progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab arm compared with the erlotinib alone arm; however, it was not statistically significant (median PFS, 17.5 months vs. 12.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.08; p = .119). The unplanned subgroup analysis showed a longer PFS with erlotinib plus bevacizumab in patients with BM (median PFS, 18.6 months vs. 10.3 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31-0.95; p = .032). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 56.6% of the erlotinib plus bevacizumab arm and 20.6% of the erlotinib arm. CONCLUSIONS: Although it was not statistically significant, a trend to improvement in PFS was observed in patients with erlotinib plus bevacizumab compared to erlotinib alone. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: A randomized Phase 2 study compared erlotinib with or without bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation. The erlotinib plus bevacizumab failed to improve median progression-free survival compared with the erlotinib alone. However, the progression-free survival benefit from erlotinib plus bevacizumab was found in patients with brain metastasis with no severe hemorrhagic adverse effects.

Overall Survival with Osimertinib in Untreated, EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. A phase 3 trial compared first-line osimertinib with other EGFR-TKIs in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial showed longer progression-free survival with osimertinib than with the comparator EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46). Data from the final analysis of overall survival have not been reported. METHODS: In this trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R allele) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (80 mg once daily) or one of two other EGFR-TKIs (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily, with patients receiving these drugs combined in a single comparator group). Overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 38.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5 to 41.8) in the osimertinib group and 31.8 months (95% CI, 26.6 to 36.0) in the comparator group (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95.05% CI, 0.64 to 1.00; P = 0.046). At 3 years, 79 of 279 patients (28%) in the osimertinib group and 26 of 277 (9%) in the comparator group were continuing to receive a trial regimen; the median exposure was 20.7 months and 11.5 months, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 42% of the patients in the osimertinib group and in 47% of those in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC with an EGFR mutation, those who received osimertinib had longer overall survival than those who received a comparator EGFR-TKI. The safety profile for osimertinib was similar to that of the comparator EGFR-TKIs, despite a longer duration of exposure in the osimertinib group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125.).

Effects of Uncertainty, Appraisal of Uncertainty, and Self-Efficacy on the Quality of Life of Elderly Patients with Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: Based on Mishel's Theory of Uncertainty.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study is to enhance the quality of life in elderly patients with lung cancer by understanding relations of uncertainty, appraisal of uncertainty, self-efficacy, and quality of life targeting elderly patients with lung cancer receiving anticancer therapy, and also analyzing the factors affecting the quality of life based on Mishel's theory. Materials and Methods: The subjects were a total of 112 lung cancer patients aged 65 or older receiving anticancer therapy. The data was collected by using self-report questionnaires targeting patients in hemato-oncology at Chungbuk National University Hospital. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, a t-test, an analysis of variance, Pearson's correlational coefficients, and hierarchical regression analysis. Results: In stage 1, anticancer therapy (chemotherapy) (ß = -0.34, p < 0.001), economic condition (low) (ß = -0.30, p < 0.001), the number of anticancer therapies (three times or more) (ß = -0.29, p < 0.001), and education (graduation from high school or higher) (ß = 0.18, p = 0.033) were influencing factors (F = 0.52, p < 0.001). In stage 2, self-efficacy (ß = 0.41, p < 0.001), appraisal of uncertainty: danger (ß = -0.29, p < 0.001), appraisal of uncertainty: opportunity (ß = 0.18, p = 0.018), the number of anticancer therapies (three times or more) (ß = -0.17, p = 0.006), and anticancer therapy (chemotherapy) (ß = -0.14, p = 0.031) were influencing factors, which showed 74.2% explanatory power (F = 26.17, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In order to improve the quality of life of subjects, it would be necessary to develop interventions for raising their self-efficacy by considering their degree of education, economic condition, the types and numbers of anticancer therapies, and understanding of the appraisal of uncertainty about the disease is assessed as an opportunity factor or a danger factor.

Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Targeted inhibition of the PD-L1-PD-1 pathway might be further amplified through combination of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with novel anti-TIGIT inhibitory immune checkpoint agents, such as tiragolumab. In the CITYSCAPE trial, we aimed to assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) therapy as first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: CITYSCAPE is a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive (defined as a tumour proportion score of ≥1% by 22C3 immunohistochemistry pharmDx assay; Dako, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) recurrent or metastatic NSCLC with measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no EGFR or ALK alterations were enrolled from 41 clinics in Europe, Asia, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice or web-based response system, to receive tiragolumab (600 mg) plus atezolizumab (1200 mg) or placebo plus atezolizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed objective response rate and progression-free survival as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, analysed after approximately 80 progression-free survival events had been observed in the primary population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03563716, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 10, 2018, and March 20, 2019. At data cutoff for the primary analysis (June 30, 2019), 135 of 275 patients assessed for eligibility were randomly assigned to receive tiragolumab plus atezolizumab (67 [50%]) or placebo plus atezolizumab (68 [50%]). In this primary analysis, after a median follow-up of 5·9 months (4·6-7·6, in the intention-to-treat population, 21 patients (31·3% [95% CI 19·5-43·2]) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 11 patients (16·2% [6·7-25·7]) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group had an objective response (p=0·031). Median progression-free survival was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·2-not estimable) in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group versus 3·6 months (2·7-4·4) in the placebo plus atezolizumab group (stratified hazard ratio 0·57 [95% CI 0·37-0·90], p=0·015). 14 (21%) patients receiving tiragolumab plus atezolizumab and 12 (18%) patients receiving placebo plus atezolizumab had serious treatment-related adverse events. The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was lipase increase (in six [9%] patients in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group vs two [3%] in the placebo plus atezolizumab group). Two treatment-related deaths (of pyrexia and infection) occurred in the tiragolumab plus atezolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab showed a clinically meaningful improvement in objective response rate and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus atezolizumab in patients with chemotherapy-naive, PD-L1-positive, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile generally similar to that of atezolizumab alone. These findings demonstrate that tiragolumab plus atezolizumab is a promising immunotherapy combination for the treatment of previously untreated, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

The new diagnostic criteria for myelodysplasia-related acute myeloid leukemia is useful for predicting clinical outcome: comparison of the 4th and 5th World Health Organization classifications.

Mutations in myelodysplasia-related (MR) genes, rather than morphological features, have been included in the diagnostic criteria of the new 5th World Health Organization (WHO) classification for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)-associated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This study compares the clinical relevance of the new criteria with those of the previous version. In a cohort of 135 patients with newly diagnosed AML, the MDS-related AML patients were classified according to the 5th and 4th edition of the WHO classification (AML, myelodysplasia-related [AML-MR5th] and AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC4th], respectively). The median age of the patients was 70.4 years. MR gene mutations were found in 48 patients (35.6%). Sixty-one patients (46.6%) were diagnosed with AML-MRC4th, while 71 patients (53.0%) were diagnosed with AML-MR5th. Patients with AML-MR5th were significantly older with significantly lower treatment response rate, higher recurrence rate, and shorter relapse-free survival after chemotherapy, whereas AML-MRC4th patients did not show any association with the treatment outcome. Overall, the following prognostic factors for survival were identified: age over 75 years, antecedent MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm, chromosome 5 or 7 abnormalities, and KRAS and ZSZR2 mutations. The 5th WHO classification is more useful for predicting the treatment response of patients with AML-MR than the previous version. Among the MR genes, ZSZR2 mutations were found to be independent prognostic factors affecting survival.

A randomised phase 2b study comparing the efficacy and safety of belotecan vs. topotecan as monotherapy for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy/safety of the camptothecin analogues belotecan and topotecan for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: One-hundred-and-sixty-four patients were randomised (1:1) to receive five consecutive daily intravenous infusions of topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) or belotecan (0.5 mg/m2), every 3 weeks, for six cycles. Main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tolerability and toxicity. The study statistical plan was non-inferiority design with ORR as the endpoint. RESULTS: In the belotecan vs. topotecan groups, ORR (primary endpoint) was 33% vs. 21% (p = 0.09) and DCR was 85% vs. 70% (p = 0.030). PFS was not different between groups. Median OS was significantly longer with belotecan than with topotecan (13.2 vs. 8.2 months, HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99), particularly in patients aged <65 years, with more advanced disease (i.e., extensive-stage disease, time to relapse: 3-6 months), or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2. More belotecan recipients completed all treatment cycles (53% vs. 35%; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy/safety of belotecan warrants further evaluation in Phase 3 trials. Belotecan potentially offers an alternative to topotecan for sensitive-relapsed SCLC, particularly in patients aged <65 years, with more advanced disease, or poor performance.

Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy for Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line therapy for metastatic, squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is platinum-based chemotherapy or pembrolizumab (for patients with programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] expression on ≥50% of tumor cells). More recently, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was shown to significantly prolong overall survival among patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, 559 patients with untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab or saline placebo for up to 35 cycles; all the patients also received carboplatin and either paclitaxel or nanoparticle albumin-bound [nab]-paclitaxel for the first 4 cycles. Primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.8 months, the median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.2 to not reached) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.8) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85; P<0.001). The overall survival benefit was consistent regardless of the level of PD-L1 expression. The median progression-free survival was 6.4 months (95% CI, 6.2 to 8.3) in the pembrolizumab-combination group and 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 5.7) in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 69.8% of the patients in the pembrolizumab-combination group and in 68.2% of the patients in the placebo-combination group. Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was more frequent in the pembrolizumab-combination group than in the placebo-combination group (13.3% vs. 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previously untreated metastatic, squamous NSCLC, the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-407 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02775435 .).

Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is an oral, third-generation, irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and EGFR T790M resistance mutations. We compared osimertinib with standard EGFR-TKIs in patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%). CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125 .).

Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .).

The Prognostic Ability of RAS Pathway-Related Gene Mutations in Patients with Myeloid Neoplasms Treated with Hypomethylating Agents.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to identify genetic predictors of treatment response and survival in patients with myeloid neoplasms treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs). METHODS: We performed next-generation sequencing on bone marrow aspiration samples of 59 patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2, or chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and treated with decitabine or azacitidine as a frontline therapy. RESULTS: A single gene with the most common mutations was TP53 (14 of 59 patients), and mutations in RAS pathway-related genes including KRAS, NRAS, FLT3, PTPN11, CBL, and KIT were found in 28.8% of patients. The overall response rate to HMAs was 33.9%. Predictive factors for a poor response were an age >75 years (p = 0.007), 3 or more gene mutations (p = 0.004), mutations in RAS pathway-related genes (p = 0.033), and a mutated NRAS gene (p = 0.042). An age >75 years (hazard ratio 2.946), diagnosis of AML (hazard ratio 2.915), and mutations in NRAS (hazard ratio 4.440) were identified as poor prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, mutations in RAS pathway-related genes were predictors of a poor response to HMAs. Particularly, mutated NRAS was associated with inferior survival rates.

The patient's perspective on treatment with dacomitinib: patient-reported outcomes from the Phase III trial ARCHER 1050.

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib.

Analysis of EGFR mutation status in malignant pleural effusion and plasma from patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Background: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is emerging as a surrogate sample type for mutation analyses. We investigated the suitability of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and plasma as a biomaterial for analyzing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation by peptide nucleic acid (PNA) clamping-assisted fluorescence melting curve (PANAMutyper™) analysis. Methods: Matched tissue, MPE cell block (MPE-CB), MPE supernatant, and plasma samples were collected from patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma who had a MPE at the time of diagnosis. EGFR mutation was assessed by PANAMutyper™. Results: Mutation analyses in matched tumor tissues, MPE-CB, MPE supernatant, and/or plasma samples were available for 67 patients. In comparison with tumor tissue and MPE-CB, MPE supernatant exhibited 84.4% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 96.4% positive predictive value (PPV), and 87.2% negative predictive value (NPV). In the same comparison, plasma exhibited 70.6% sensitivity, 100.0% specificity, 100.0% PPV, and 73.7% NPV. When sorted by mutation type, MPE supernatant had better sensitivity than plasma for the detection of two major EGFR mutations: 93.8% vs. 75.0% for exon 19 deletion and 73.3% vs. 60.0% for L858R. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with MPEs, MPE supernatant demonstrated superior diagnostic performance compared with plasma using a PNA-based real-time PCR method.

Altered integrity of corpus callosum in generalized epilepsy in relation to seizure lateralization after corpus callosotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Generalized-onset seizures are usually conceptualized as engaging bilaterally distributed networks with no clear focus. However, the authors previously reported a case series demonstrating that in some patients with generalized-onset seizures, focal seizure onset could be discovered after corpus callosotomy. The corpus callosum is considered to be a major pathway for seizure generalization in this group of patients. The authors hypothesized that, in patients with generalized-onset seizures, the structure of the corpus callosum could be different between patients who have lateralized seizures and those who have nonlateralized seizures after corpus callosotomy. The authors aimed to evaluate the structural difference through statistical analysis of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) scalars between these two groups of patients. METHODS: Thirty-two patients diagnosed with generalized-onset motor seizures and without an MRI lesion were included in this study. Among them, 16 patients developed lateralized epileptic activities after corpus callosotomy, and the remaining 16 patients continued to have nonlateralized seizures after corpus callosotomy. Presurgical DTI studies were acquired to quantify the structural integrity of the corpus callosum. RESULTS: The DTI analysis showed significant reduction of fractional anisotropy (FA) and increase in radial diffusivity (RD) in the body of the corpus callosum in the lateralized group compared with the nonlateralized group. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings indicate the existence of different configurations of bilateral epileptic networks in generalized epilepsy. Generalized seizures with focal onset relying on rapid spread through the corpus callosum might cause more structural damage related to demyelination in the corpus callosum, showing reduced FA and increased RD. This study suggests that presurgical DTI analysis of the corpus callosum might predict the seizure lateralization after corpus callosotomy.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (PACIFIC): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, phase 3 PACIFIC trial, durvalumab improved the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival compared with that for placebo, with similar safety, in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: PACIFIC is an ongoing, international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically or cytologically documented stage III, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, for which they had received at least two cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy, with no disease progression after this treatment. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) using an interactive voice response system and a blocked design (block size=3) stratified by age, sex, and smoking history to receive 10 mg/kg intravenous durvalumab or matching placebo 1-42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy, then every 2 weeks up to 12 months. The primary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival have been reported previously. PROs were a prespecified secondary outcome. We assessed PRO symptoms, functioning, and global health status or quality of life in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 weeks until week 48, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Changes from baseline to 12 month in key symptoms were analysed with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time-to-event analyses. A 10-point or greater change from baseline (deterioration or improvement) was deemed clinically relevant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125461, and EudraCT, 2014-000336-42. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2014, and April 22, 2016, 476 patients were assigned to receive durvalumab, and 237 patients were assigned to receive placebo. As of March 22, 2018, the median follow-up was 25·2 months (IQR 14·1-29·5). More than 79% of patients given durvalumab and more than 82% of patients given placebo completed questionnaires up to week 48. Between baseline and 12 months, the prespecified longitudinal PROs of interest, cough (MMRM-adjusted mean change 1·8 [95% CI 0·06 to 3·54] in the durvalumab group vs 0·7 [-1·91 to 3·30] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (3·1 [1·75 to 4·36] vs 1·4 [-0·51 to 3·34]), chest pain (-3·1 [-4·57 to -1·60] vs -3·5 [-5·68 to -1·29]), fatigue (-3·0 [-4·53 to -1·50] vs -5·2 [-7·45 to -2·98]), appetite loss (-5·8 [-7·28 to -4·36] vs -7·0 [-9·17 to -4·87]), physical functioning (0·1 [-1·10 to 1·28] vs 2·0 [0·22 to 3·73]), and global health status or quality of life (2·6 [1·21 to 3·94] vs 1·8 [-0·25 to 3·81]) remained stable with both treatments, with no clinically relevant changes from baseline. The between-group differences in changes from baseline to 12 months in cough (difference in adjusted mean changes 1·1, 95% CI -1·89 to 4·11), dyspnoea (1·6, -0·58 to 3·87), chest pain (0·4, -2·13 to 2·93), fatigue (2·2, -0·38 to 4·78), appetite loss (1·2, -1·27 to 3·67), physical functioning (-1·9, -3·91 to 0·15), or global health status or quality of life (0·8, -1·55 to 3·14) were not clinically relevant. Generally, there were no clinically important between-group differences in time to deterioration of prespecified key PRO endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a clinical benefit with durvalumab can be attained without compromising PROs. This result is of note because the previous standard of care was observation alone, with no presumed detriment to PROs. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.