Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789. FINDINGS: Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy. INTERPRETATION: TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting. FUNDING: Novocure.

miRNA-Seq Tissue Diagnostic Signature: A Novel Model for NSCLC Subtyping.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) encompasses distinct histopathological subtypes, namely adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell lung carcinoma (SCC), which require precise differentiation for effective treatment strategies. In this study, we present a novel molecular diagnostic model that integrates tissue-specific expression profiles of microRNAs (miRNAs) obtained through next-generation sequencing (NGS) to discriminate between AC and SCC subtypes of NSCLC. This approach offers a more comprehensive and precise molecular characterization compared to conventional methods such as histopathology or immunohistochemistry. Firstly, we identified 31 miRNAs with significant differential expression between AC and SCC cases. Subsequently, we constructed a 17-miRNA signature through rigorous multistep analyses, including LASSO/elastic net regression. The signature includes both upregulated miRNAs (hsa-miR-326, hsa-miR-450a-5p, hsa-miR-1287-5p, hsa-miR-556-5p, hsa-miR-542-3p, hsa-miR-30b-5p, hsa-miR-4728-3p, hsa-miR-450a-1-3p, hsa-miR-375, hsa-miR-147b, hsa-miR-7705, and hsa-miR-653-3p) and downregulated miRNAs (hsa-miR-944, hsa-miR-205-5p, hsa-miR-205-3p, hsa-miR-149-5p, and hsa-miR-6510-3p). To assess the discriminative capability of the 17-miRNA signature, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, which demonstrated an impressive area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.994. Our findings highlight the exceptional diagnostic performance of the miRNA signature as a stratifying biomarker for distinguishing between AC and SCC subtypes in lung cancer. The developed molecular diagnostic model holds promise for providing a more accurate and comprehensive molecular characterization of NSCLC, thereby guiding personalized treatment decisions and improving clinical management and prognosis for patients.

Treatment of Brain Metastases of Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma.

Lung cancer is one of the most common malignant neoplasms. As a result of the disease's progression, patients may develop metastases to the central nervous system. The prognosis in this location is unfavorable; untreated metastatic lesions may lead to death within one to two months. Existing therapies-neurosurgery and radiation therapy-do not improve the prognosis for every patient. The discovery of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-activating mutations and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) rearrangements in patients with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma has allowed for the introduction of small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors to the treatment of advanced-stage patients. The Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) is a transmembrane protein with tyrosine kinase-dependent activity. EGFR is present in membranes of all epithelial cells. In physiological conditions, it plays an important role in the process of cell growth and proliferation. Binding the ligand to the EGFR causes its dimerization and the activation of the intracellular signaling cascade. Signal transduction involves the activation of MAPK, AKT, and JNK, resulting in DNA synthesis and cell proliferation. In cancer cells, binding the ligand to the EGFR also leads to its dimerization and transduction of the signal to the cell interior. It has been demonstrated that activating mutations in the gene for EGFR-exon19 (deletion), L858R point mutation in exon 21, and mutation in exon 20 results in cancer cell proliferation. Continuous stimulation of the receptor inhibits apoptosis, stimulates invasion, intensifies angiogenesis, and facilitates the formation of distant metastases. As a consequence, the cancer progresses. These activating gene mutations for the EGFR are present in 10-20% of lung adenocarcinomas. Approximately 3-7% of patients with lung adenocarcinoma have the echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 (EML4)/ALK fusion gene. The fusion of the two genes EML4 and ALK results in a fusion gene that activates the intracellular signaling pathway, stimulates the proliferation of tumor cells, and inhibits apoptosis. A new group of drugs-small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors-has been developed; the first generation includes gefitinib and erlotinib and the ALK inhibitor crizotinib. These drugs reversibly block the EGFR by stopping the signal transmission to the cell. The second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) afatinib or ALK inhibitor alectinib block the receptor irreversibly. Clinical trials with TKI in patients with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma with central nervous system (CNS) metastases have shown prolonged, progression-free survival, a high percentage of objective responses, and improved quality of life. Resistance to treatment with this group of drugs emerging during TKI therapy is the basis for the detection of resistance mutations. The T790M mutation, present in exon 20 of the EGFR gene, is detected in patients treated with first- and second-generation TKI and is overcome by Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI. The I117N resistance mutation in patients with the ALK mutation treated with alectinib is overcome by ceritinib. In this way, sequential therapy ensures the continuity of treatment. In patients with CNS metastases, attempts are made to simultaneously administer radiation therapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Patients with lung adenocarcinoma with CNS metastases, without activating EGFR mutation and without ALK rearrangement, benefit from immunotherapy. This therapeutic option blocks the PD-1 receptor on the surface of T or B lymphocytes or PD-L1 located on cancer cells with an applicable antibody. Based on clinical trials, pembrolizumab and all antibodies are included in the treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma with CNS metastases.

Tumour Treating Fields in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (STELLAR): a multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) are a regional, antimitotic treatment for solid tumours, which is based on the delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields. The aim of the STELLAR study was to test the activity of TTFields delivered to the thorax in combination with systemic chemotherapy for the front-line treatment of patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: STELLAR was a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 12 European academic and non-academic sites (five in Italy, three in Poland, one in France, one in Belgium, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands) for treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for mesothelioma. Patients received continuous TTFields at a frequency of 150 kHz to the thorax and concomitant chemotherapy with intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1) plus intravenous platinum (either cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients not progressing after completion of chemotherapy received TTFields as maintenance treatment until progression, patient or physician decision, or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Survival analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least 1 day of TTFields treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397928. FINDINGS: Between Feb 9, 2015 and March 21, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled in the study. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·4-16·6). Median overall survival was 18·2 months (95% CI 12·1-25·8). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (nine [11%] patients), neutropenia (seven [9%]), and thrombocytopenia (four [5%]). Skin reaction was the only adverse event associated with TTFields and was reported as grade 1-2 in 53 (66%) patients, and as grade 3 in four (5%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed encouraging overall survival results, with no increase in systemic toxicity. TTFields (150 kHz) delivered to the thorax concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum was an active and safe combination for front-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Further investigation in a randomised trial is warranted. FUNDING: Novocure.

Retrospective Assessment of a Serum Proteomic Test in a Phase III Study Comparing Erlotinib plus Placebo with Erlotinib plus Tivantinib (MARQUEE) in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P). RESULTS: Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733; p < .0001 for T+E, HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.546-0.870; p = .0015 for P+E; OS: 4.0 mo for both arms, HR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.264-0.422; p < .0001 for T+E; HR, 0.449; 95% CI, 0.353-0.576; p < .0001 for P+E). The VS-G population had higher OS than the VS-P population within Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (PS) categories. VS-G patients on the T+E arm had longer PFS, but not OS, than VS-G patients on the P+E arm (p = .0108). Among EGFR mutation-positive patients, those with VS-G status had a median OS more than twice that of any other group (OS: 31.6 mo for T+E and 22.8 mo for P+E), whereas VS-P patients had similar survival rates as VS-G, EGFR-wild type patients (OS: 13.7 mo for T+E and 6.5 mo for P+E). CONCLUSION: In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Cyclophosphamide and tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2) following first-line chemotherapy in responding patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

The humanized KS-interleukin-2, tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2; EMD 273066), is an EpCAM-specific immunocytokine with reported immunologic activity in combination with cyclophosphamide. This Phase 2, randomized, open-label study compared tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide, administered as maintenance, with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with/without prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Patients received cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m, Day 1 of every 3-week cycle), followed by tucotuzumab (1.5 mg/m, Days 2-4) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), treatment response, and safety. The 6-month PFS rate was lower in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group (n=64) than in the BSC group (n=44): 6.4 versus 12.2% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.98; 80% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.31]. HRs for PFS, time to progression, and OS indicated a similar risk of disease progression and death in both groups and best overall responses were generally comparable. For patients with previous PCI (n=26), there was a nonsignificant trend toward prolonged median PFS (1.7 vs. 1.5 months; HR: 0.60; 80% CI: 0.33-1.11) and OS (21.5 vs. 14.3 months; HR: 0.58; 80% CI: 0.31-1.05) in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group. Adverse events were more frequent with tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide (92.2%) than with BSC (47.7%). Tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide was well tolerated in ED-SCLC patients, but did not show PFS or OS benefits compared with BSC. The observed trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in the subgroup of patients receiving previous PCI may support further confirmation in a larger population.

The rationale for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer de-escalation treatment strategies.

The treatment paradigms for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) are changing due to the emergence of human papillomavirus-associated tumors (HPV-related), possessing distinct molecular profiles and responses to therapy. Retrospective studies have suggested that HPV-related HNSCCs are more frequently cured than those caused by tobacco. Current clinical trials focus on the reduction of treatment-related toxicity and the development of HPV-targeted therapies. New treatment strategies include: 1) dose reduction of radiotherapy, 2) the use of cetuximab instead of cisplatin for chemo-radiation 3) less invasive surgical options, i.e. trans-oral robotic surgery and trans-oral laser microlaryngoscopy, and 4) more specific treatment attempts, including immunotherapeutic strategies, thanks to increasing comprehension of the molecular background of HPV-related HNSCC. Whereas recently published data shed light on immune mechanisms, other studies have focused on specific vaccination against HPV-related HNSCC. A crucial problem is patient selection to the chosen bias. Truly HPV-related cancers (p16-positive and HPV DNA-positive) with biomarkers for good response to therapy could be included in randomized trials aiming for less severe and better tailored therapy.

Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. METHODS: The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4-12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 µg lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25.6 months (95% CI 22.5-29.2) with tecemotide versus 22.3 months (19.6-25.5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0.88, 0.75-1.03; p=0.123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30.8 months (95% CI 25.6-36.8) compared with 20.6 months (17.4-23.9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0.78, 0.64-0.95; p=0.016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19.4 months [95% CI 17.6-23.1] vs 24.6 months [18.8-33.0], respectively; adjusted HR 1.12, 0.87-1.44; p=0.38). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. FUNDING: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).

C-MET inhibitors in the treatment of lung cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Lung cancer is the most common malignant neoplasm and constitutes the most common neoplastic cause of death globally. The results of therapies employing standard chemotherapy are unsatisfactory. Currently, efforts are being made to personalize the therapy; numerous clinical studies are being conducted around the world to assess the efficacy and safety of agents directed at molecular targets. One of these molecular targets is the c-MET proto-oncogene, whose primary ligand is hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). C-MET hyperactivity has been observed in numerous neoplasms, including non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Prolonged or continuous activity of the receptor leads to excessive cell proliferation and is related to the development or progression of neoplastic disease. C-MET inhibitors can be classified into three groups: small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the c-MET receptor (crizotinib, tivantinib, cabozantinib, foretinib), as well as monoclonal antibodies against c-MET (onartuzumab) and against the HGF ligand (ficlatuzumab, rilotumumab). The efficacy and safety of these agents is assessed both in monotherapy and in combination with other molecularly targeted agents. Furthermore, the toxicity profile of c-MET inhibitors is completely different from that of standard chemotherapy. The best understood c-MET inhibitor used in the treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients is crizotinib. It is registered for patients with the presence of ALK gene rearrangements after the failure of the first line of treatment based on platinum derivatives. The purpose of this present paper is to present clinical studies that assessed the efficacy and safety of c-MET inhibitors for the treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma, as well as current indications for the use of these molecules.

[The role of systemic therapies of non-small cell lung cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma: updated expert recommendations]. / Rola systemowych metod leczenia u chorych na niedrobnokomórkowego raka pluca i zlosliwego miedzybloniaka oplucnej: uaktualnione zalecenia ekspertów.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related death in Poland. About 85% of all lung cancer constitutes non-small cancer (NSCLC), in which the role of cytotoxic and molecularly targeted drugs is increasing. This article presents the current evidence- based recommendations for the use of these methods in clinical practice in NSCLC and malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Actual status of therapeutic vaccination in non-small cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although treatment methods such as surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy have improved, prognosis remains unsatisfactory, and developing new therapeutic strategies is still an urgent matter. Immunotherapy is a novel therapeutic approach wherein activated immune cells can specifically kill tumour cells. Several lung cancer vaccines have demonstrated prolonged survival time in phase II and III trials, and several clinical trials are under investigation. However, many clinical trials involving cancer vaccination with defined tumour antigens have shown this method to work only in a small number of patients. Cancer immunotherapy is not completely effective in eradicating tumour cells because they evade host immune control.

Head-to-Head Comparison of [18F]PSMA-1007 and [18F]FDG PET/CT in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) exhibits high aggressiveness and a notably poorer prognosis at advanced stages. Nuclear medicine offers new possibilities, not only for diagnosis but also potentially promising therapeutic strategies. This prospective study explores the potential of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) as a diagnostic and therapeutic target in TNBC. METHODS: the research investigates PSMA expression in vivo among TNBC patients using [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT and compares it head-to-head with the standard-of-care [18F]FDG PET/CT. RESULTS: The study involves 10 TNBC patients, revealing comparable uptake of [18F]PSMA-1007 and [18F]FDG in primary and metastatic lesions. Nodal metastases were found in eight patients, showing similar SUVmax values in both modalities. Two patients had uncountable lung metastases positive in both [18F]FDG and [18F]PSMA-1007 scans. PET-positive bone metastases were identified by 18F-PSMA in four patients, while elevated [18F]FDG uptake was found only in three of them. Distant metastases displayed higher SUVmax values in the [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT, as compared to [18F]FDG. Additionally, brain metastases were exclusively detected using [18F]PSMA-1007. CONCLUSIONS: the findings provide valuable insights into the expression of PSMA in TNBC and underscore the potential clinical significance of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET/CT in enhancing both diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for this aggressive breast cancer subtype.

Efficacy and Safety of the MDM2-p53 Antagonist Brigimadlin (BI 907828) in Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Case Series.

Background: In patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), first-line chemotherapy plus immunotherapy has improved outcomes; however, second-line options that reflect the disease's molecular heterogeneity are still needed. One emerging target is MDM2, amplified in ~5-8% of BTC cases. Methods: This is a subset analysis of two ongoing Phase Ia/Ib trials assessing patients treated with brigimadlin (BI 907828; a highly potent, oral MDM2-p53 antagonist) ± ezabenlimab (PD-1 inhibitor) ± BI 754111 (anti-LAG-3; n = 1). Results: Results from 12 patients with BTC are shown (monotherapy: n = 6/combination: n = 6). Six patients achieved partial response (monotherapy: n = 2/combination: n = 4), four had stable disease; responses were durable. Brigimadlin had a manageable safety profile. Seven patients had dose reductions due to adverse events, but no treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Brigimadlin demonstrated anti-tumor activity in patients with advanced MDM2-amplified BTC, and warrants further investigation.

Biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) is a cancer that affects the bile ducts which are part of the digestive system. Usually, the first treatment for advanced BTC (ie cannot be removed surgically and/or has spread) is chemotherapy in combination with immunotherapy. However, if chemotherapy does not work, or stops working, there are few treatment options available in second-line. Accordingly, intensive research is ongoing to try and find effective drugs. One potential medicine, called brigimadlin (or BI 907828), is a tablet that activates a molecule in tumor cells called p53. The normal function of p53 is to kill cells when they first start to become cancerous. However, if p53 is turned off by genetic mutations, or other mechanisms, then cancer can develop. Although p53 is rarely mutated in BTC tumors, it is inactivated by another molecule called MDM2 which is usually present at abnormally high levels in BTC. Brigimadlin prevents interaction between MDM2 and p53. This activates p53 and causes the cancer to die. Two clinical trials are currently assessing brigimadlin in a range of cancers, including BTC, with the aim of identifying a safe dose that can be examined in more detail in larger trials. So far, 12 patients with BTC have been treated. The patients' tumors significantly shrank in six of these patients and remained stable in a further four patients. Side effects were as expected and could be tolerated by pausing treatment or lowering the dose. These results show that brigimadlin should be tested further in patients with advanced BTC.

Derazantinib alone and with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR aberrations.

BACKGROUND: This Phase 1b/2 study assessed the efficacy in terms of objective response rate (ORR) of the FGFR1/2/3 kinase inhibitor derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) and FGFR1-3 genetic aberrations (FGFR1-3GA). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label study comprised 5 substudies. In Substudies 1 and 5, patients with mUC with FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib monotherapy (300 mg QD in Substudy 1, 200 mg BID in Substudy 5). In Substudy 2, patients with any solid tumor received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks plus derazantinib 200 or 300 mg QD. In Substudy 3, patients with mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 200 mg BID plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. In Substudy 4, patients with FGFR inhibitor-resistant mUC harboring FGFR1-3GA received derazantinib 300 mg QD monotherapy or derazantinib 300 mg QD plus atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The ORR for Substudies 1 and 5 combined was 4/49 (8.2%, 95% confidence interval = 2.3% to 19.6%), which was based on 4 partial responses. The ORR in Substudy 4 was 1/7 (14.3%, 95% confidence interval = 0.4% to 57.9%; 1 partial response for derazantinib 300 mg monotherapy, zero for derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg). In Substudy 2, derazantinib 300 mg plus atezolizumab 1200 mg was identified as a recommended dose for Phase 2. Only 2 patients entered Substudy 3. CONCLUSIONS: Derazantinib as monotherapy or in combination with atezolizumab was well-tolerated but did not show sufficient efficacy to warrant further development in mUC. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04045613, EudraCT 2019-000359-15.

The analysis of ALK gene rearrangement by fluorescence in situ hybridization in non-small cell lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: ALK gene rearrangement is observed in a small subset (3-7%) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The efficacy of crizotinib was shown in lung cancer patients harbouring ALK rearrangement. Nowadays, the analysis of ALK gene rearrangement is added to molecular examination of predictive factors. AIM OF THE STUDY: The frequency of ALK gene rearrangement as well as the type of its irregularity was analysed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in tissue samples from NSCLC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The ALK gene rearrangement was analysed in 71 samples including 53 histological and 18 cytological samples. The analysis could be performed in 56 cases (78.87%), significantly more frequently in histological than in cytological materials. The encountered problem with ALK rearrangement diagnosis resulted from the scarcity of tumour cells in cytological samples, high background fluorescence noises and fragmentation of cell nuclei. RESULTS: The normal ALK copy number without gene rearrangement was observed in 26 (36.62%) patients ALK gene polysomy without gene rearrangement was observed in 25 (35.21%) samples while in 3 (4.23%) samples ALK gene amplification was found. ALK gene rearrangement was observed in 2 (2.82%) samples from males, while in the first case the rearrangement coexisted with ALK amplification. In the second case, signet-ring tumour cells were found during histopathological examination and this patient was successfully treated with crizotinib with partial remission lasting 16 months. CONCLUSIONS: FISH is a useful technique for ALK gene rearrangement analysis which allows us to specify the type of gene irregularities. ALK gene examination could be performed in histological as well as cytological (cellblocks) samples, but obtaining a reliable result in cytological samples depends on the cellularity of examined materials.

Quality of life in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer given maintenance treatment with pemetrexed versus placebo (H3E-MC-JMEN): results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed maintenance therapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo, and had a good safety profile in a phase 3 placebo-controlled study in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results for quality of life, symptom palliation, and tolerability are presented here. METHODS: After four cycles of platinum-based induction therapy, 663 patients with stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) from March 15, 2005, to July 20, 2007, using the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days; n=441) or placebo (n=222) plus best supportive care until disease progression. The primary efficacy data have been reported previously. Patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) at baseline, after each cycle, and post-discontinuation. Worsening of symptoms was defined as an increase of 15 mm or more from baseline on a 100 mm scale for each LCSS item. The primary outcome for these quality-of-life analyses was time to worsening of symptoms, analysed for all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00102804. FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics, including LCSS scores, were well balanced between groups. Baseline LCSS scores were low, indicating low symptom burden for patients without disease progression after completion of first-line treatment. Longer time to worsening was recorded for pain (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·59-0·99; p=0·041) and haemoptysis (HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·34-0·97; p=0·038) with pemetrexed than with placebo; no other significant differences in analyses of time to worsening were noted. Additional longitudinal analyses showed a greater increase in loss of appetite in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group (4·3 mm vs 0·2 mm; p=0·028). Rates of resource use were statistically higher for pemetrexed than for placebo: admissions to hospital for drug-related adverse events (19 [4%] vs none; p=0·001), transfusions (42 [10%] vs seven [3%]; p=0·003), and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (26 [6%] vs four [2%]; p=0·017). INTERPRETATION: Quality of life during maintenance therapy with pemetrexed is similar to placebo, except for a small increase in loss of appetite, and significantly delayed worsening of pain and haemoptysis. In view of the improvements in overall and progression-free survival noted with pemetrexed maintenance therapy, such treatment is an option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who have not progressed after platinum-based induction therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from the phase 3 First-Line ErbituX in lung cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·871, 95% CI 0·762-0·996; p=0·044) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To define patients benefiting most from cetuximab, we studied the association of tumour EGFR expression level with clinical outcome in FLEX study patients. METHODS: We used prospectively collected tumour EGFR expression data to generate an immunohistochemistry score for FLEX study patients on a continuous scale of 0-300. We used response data to select an outcome-based discriminatory threshold immunohistochemistry score for EGFR expression of 200. Treatment outcome was analysed in patients with low (immunohistochemistry score <200) and high (≥200) tumour EGFR expression. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. We analysed patients from the FLEX intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 1121 of 1125 (99·6%) patients from the FLEX study ITT population. High EGFR expression was scored for 345 (31%) evaluable patients and low for 776 (69%) patients. For patients in the high EGFR expression group, overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 12·0 months [95% CI 10·2-15·2] vs 9·6 months [7·6-10·6]; HR 0·73, 0·58-0·93; p=0·011), with no meaningful increase in side-effects. We recorded no corresponding survival benefit for patients in the low EGFR expression group (median 9·8 months [8·9-12·2] vs 10·3 months [9·2-11·5]; HR 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·88). A treatment interaction test assessing the difference in the HRs for overall survival between the EGFR expression groups suggested a predictive value for EGFR expression (p=0·044). INTERPRETATION: High EGFR expression is a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Assessment of EGFR expression could offer a personalised treatment approach in this setting. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

A Systematic Review of Progress toward Unlocking the Power of Epigenetics in NSCLC: Latest Updates and Perspectives.

Epigenetic research has the potential to improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of cancer, specifically non-small-cell lung cancer, and support our efforts to personalize the management of the disease. Epigenetic alterations are expected to have relevance for early detection, diagnosis, outcome prediction, and tumor response to therapy. Additionally, epi-drugs as therapeutic modalities may lead to the recovery of genes delaying tumor growth, thus increasing survival rates, and may be effective against tumors without druggable mutations. Epigenetic changes involve DNA methylation, histone modifications, and the activity of non-coding RNAs, causing gene expression changes and their mutual interactions. This systematic review, based on 110 studies, gives a comprehensive overview of new perspectives on diagnostic (28 studies) and prognostic (25 studies) epigenetic biomarkers, as well as epigenetic treatment options (57 studies) for non-small-cell lung cancer. This paper outlines the crosstalk between epigenetic and genetic factors as well as elucidates clinical contexts including epigenetic treatments, such as dietary supplements and food additives, which serve as anti-carcinogenic compounds and regulators of cellular epigenetics and which are used to reduce toxicity. Furthermore, a future-oriented exploration of epigenetic studies in NSCLC is presented. The findings suggest that additional studies are necessary to comprehend the mechanisms of epigenetic changes and investigate biomarkers, response rates, and tailored combinations of treatments. In the future, epigenetics could have the potential to become an integral part of diagnostics, prognostics, and personalized treatment in NSCLC.