Transitioning to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Trends and Surgical Outcomes in a Regionalized Pulmonary Oncology Network.

BACKGROUND: Several regulatory agencies have approved the use of the neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy for resectable stage II and III of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and numerous trials investigating novel agents are underway. However, significant concerns exist around the feasibility and safety of offering curative surgery to patients treated within such pathways. The goal in this study was to evaluate the impact of a transition towards a large-scale neoadjuvant therapy program for NSCLC. METHODS: Medical charts of patients with clinical stage II and III NSCLC who underwent resection from January 2015 to December 2020 were reviewed. The primary outcome was perioperative complication rate between neoadjuvant-treated versus upfront surgery patients. Multivariable logistic regression estimated occurrence of postoperative complications and overall survival was assessed as an exploratory secondary outcome by Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 428 patients included, 106 (24.8%) received neoadjuvant therapy and 322 (75.2%) upfront surgery. Frequency of minor and major postoperative complications was similar between groups (P = .22). Occurrence in postoperative complication was similar in both cohort (aOR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.73-2.34). Neoadjuvant therapy administration increased from 10% to 45% with a rise in targeted and immuno-therapies over time, accompanied by a reduced rate of preoperative radiation therapy use. 1-, 2-, and 5-year overall survival was higher in neoadjuvant therapy compared to upfront surgery patients (Log-Rank P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in perioperative outcomes and survival were observed in resectable NSCLC patients treated by neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery. Transition to neoadjuvant therapy among resectable NSCLC patients is safe and feasible from a surgical perspective.

Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations.

PURPOSE: The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. CONCLUSION: Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Radiogenomic Models Using Machine Learning Techniques to Predict EGFR Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to build radiogenomics models from texture signatures derived from computed tomography (CT) and 18F-FDG PET-CT (FDG PET-CT) images of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with and without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. METHODS: Fifty patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2011 and 2015 and with known EGFR mutation status were retrospectively identified. Texture features extracted from pretreatment CT and FDG PET-CT images by manual contouring of the primary tumor were used to develop multivariate logistic regression (LR) models to predict EGFR mutations in exon 19 and exon 20. RESULTS: An LR model evaluating FDG PET-texture features was able to differentiate EGFR mutant from wild type with an area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.87, 0.76, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively. The model derived from CT texture features had an AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.83, 0.84, 0.73, and 0.78, respectively. FDG PET-texture features that could discriminate between mutations in EGFR exon 19 and 21 demonstrated AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.86, 0.84, 0.73, and 0.78, respectively. Based on CT texture features, the AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 0.75, 0.81, 0.69, and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSION: Non-small cell lung cancer texture analysis using FGD-PET and CT images can identify tumors with mutations in EGFR. Imaging signatures could be valuable for pretreatment assessment and prognosis in precision therapy.

Optimal sequencing strategies in the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To summarize current understanding of the efficacy, role, and cost-effectiveness of the available epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and to evaluate sequencing strategies based on the available evidence. Summary. EGFR TKIs are the current standard of care for patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Five EGFR TKIs are currently approved in the United States for use in a first-line setting; these TKIs differ in mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, and cost. Most patients develop resistance to first-line EGFR TKIs and require subsequent therapy with additional EGFR TKIs, chemotherapy, and/or other targeted agents. A major consideration when selecting EGFR TKIs, both as first-line or subsequent treatment options, is cost-effectiveness. Although clinical trials have shown that the second- and third-generation EGFR TKIs are superior in efficacy to the first-generation agents, pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that the first-generation agents are the most cost-effective, with the second-generation TKI afatinib also considered cost-effective in some studies. Despite its impressive efficacy, osimertinib appears to be less cost-effective due to substantially higher acquisition costs. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data suggest that first-line afatinib followed by osimertinib may offer promising survival outcomes and, on the basis of efficacy alone, may represent an optimal sequencing strategy in the majority of patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, in particular Asian patients and those with Del19-positive tumors. However, considerably more research into outcomes and costs associated with consecutive sequencing of EGFR TKIs is needed before any conclusions can be reached.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Noninferiority Study of the Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Darbepoetin Alfa for Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in Patients With Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated noninferiority of darbepoetin alfa versus placebo for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in anemic patients with NSCLC treated to a 12.0-g/dL hemoglobin (Hb) ceiling. METHODS: Adults with stage IV NSCLC expected to receive two or more cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and Hb less than or equal to 11.0 g/dL were randomized 2:1 to blinded 500 µg darbepoetin alfa or placebo every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was OS; a stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate noninferiority (upper confidence limit for hazard ratio [HR] < 1.15). Secondary endpoints were PFS and incidence of transfusions or Hb less than or equal to 8.0 g/dL from week 5 to end of the efficacy treatment period. RESULTS: The primary analysis set included 2516 patients: 1680 were randomized to darbepoetin alfa; 836 to placebo. The study was stopped early per independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendation after the primary endpoint was met with no new safety concerns. Darbepoetin alfa was noninferior to placebo for OS (stratified HR = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83‒1.01) and PFS (stratified HR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87‒1.04). Darbepoetin alfa was superior to placebo for transfusion or Hb less than or equal to 8.0 g/dL from week 5 to end of the efficacy treatment period (stratified odds ratio = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.57‒0.86; p < 0.001). Objective tumor response was similar between the groups (darbepoetin alfa, 36.4%; placebo, 32.6%). Incidence of serious adverse events was 31.1% in both groups. No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Darbepoetin alfa dosed to a 12.0-g/dL Hb ceiling was noninferior to placebo for OS and PFS and significantly reduced odds of transfusion or Hb less than or equal to 8.0 g/dL in anemic patients with NSCLC receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Amplifying Outcomes: Checkpoint Inhibitor Combinations in First-Line Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is one of the most common types of cancer, resulting in approximately 1.8 million deaths worldwide. Immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors has become standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and there is increasing interest in further improving outcomes through combination with other therapeutics. This systematic review evaluates emerging phase III data on the efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitor combinations as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published and presented literature was searched using the key search terms "non-small cell lung cancer" AND "checkpoint-inhibitors" (OR respective aliases) AND phase III trials. Seven randomized phase III clinical trials reporting outcomes on checkpoint inhibitor combinations in first-line advanced NSCLC were identified. RESULTS: Four first-line trials reported outcomes for checkpoint inhibitor combinations in nonsquamous NSCLC. Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy, atezolizumab-chemotherapy, and atezolizumab-bevacizumab-chemotherapy showed significantly improved overall survival compared with controls in patients with advanced nonsquamous epidermal growth factor receptor-negative (EGFR-)/ anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK)- NSCLC. Two trials reported outcomes for squamous NSCLC, with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy reporting significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy. The combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab in all-comer histology failed to improve OS compared with histology appropriate chemotherapy in patients regardless of their tumor mutational burden status. Based on improved survival and safety, either pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab-chemotherapy administered based on PD-L1 status and histology is a preferred treatment option. Outcomes for atezolizumab-bevacizumab-chemotherapy in EGFR+/ALK+ patients are promising and require further exploration. CONCLUSION: First-line checkpoint inhibitors added to standard therapies improve overall survival for nonsquamous EGFR-/ALK- and squamous advanced NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors are now standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and emerging data show that combining these agents with established chemotherapy further improves outcomes. The phase III KEYNOTE-189 and IMPower-130 trials showed significantly improved survival using this strategy for nonsquamous NSCLC, and the phase III KEYNOTE-407 trial showed similar results in squamous disease. Checkpoint inhibitor combinations are therefore an important new treatment option for first-line NSCLC. Programmed death ligand-1 expression may inform the use of checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy, and overall tumor mutation burden is also an emerging biomarker for this new treatment strategy.

First-line afatinib for advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC: Analysis of long-term responders in the LUX-Lung 3, 6, and 7 trials.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response vs. platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the phase III LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6 trials, and significantly improved PFS, time to treatment failure and objective response vs. gefitinib in the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial. We report post-hoc analyses of efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in afatinib long-term responders (LTRs) in these trials. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIB/IV EGFRm + NSCLC randomized to afatinib in LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7 were included in the analysis. Patients treated with afatinib for ≥ 3 years were defined as LTRs. RESULTS: In LUX-Lung 3, LUX-Lung 6, and LUX-Lung 7, 24/229 (10%), 23/239 (10%) and 19/160 (12%) afatinib-treated patients were LTRs. Baseline characteristics were similar to the study populations, except for the proportions of women (LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6 only; 92/78% vs. 64% overall) and Del19-positive patients (63-79% vs. 49-58% overall). Median treatment duration among LTRs was 50, 56 and 42 months, and median PFS was 49.5, 55.5, and 42.2 months in LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7, respectively. Median overall survival could not be estimated. Frequency of afatinib dose reduction was consistent with the LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7 overall populations. PROs were stable in LTRs, with slight improvements after 3 years of afatinib treatment vs. baseline scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the LUX-Lung 3/LUX-Lung 6/LUX-Lung 7 trials, 10-12% of afatinib-treated patients were LTRs. Long-term afatinib treatment was independent of tolerability-guided dose adjustment and had no detrimental impact on safety or PROs.

Sequencing of therapy following first-line afatinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: With the availability of several epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), sequential therapy could potentially render EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer a chronic disease in some patients. In this retrospective analysis of EGFR mutation-positive (Del19/L858R) patients receiving first-line afatinib in LUX-Lung 3, 6, and 7, we assessed uptake of, and outcomes following, subsequent therapies including the third-generation EGFR TKI, osimertinib. METHODS: Post-progression therapy data were prospectively collected during follow-up. Molecular testing of tumours at progression/discontinuation of afatinib was not mandatory. Duration of subsequent therapies, and survival following osimertinib, were calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: Among 553 patients who discontinued first-line afatinib, second-, third- and fourth-line therapy was administered in 394 (71%), 265 (48%), and 156 (28%) patients. The most common post-progression therapy was platinum-based chemotherapy (46%). Thirty-seven patients received subsequent osimertinib, 10 as second-line treatment. Median progression-free survival on afatinib in these 37 patients was 21.9 months. Median duration of osimertinib therapy was 20.2 months; median overall survival was not reached after a median follow-up of 4.7 years. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients treated with first-line afatinib received subsequent therapy. Although limited by sample size, enrichment, and a retrospective nature, data from patients who received sequential afatinib and osimertinib are encouraging, warranting further investigation.

First-line afatinib vs gefitinib for patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (LUX-Lung 7): impact of afatinib dose adjustment and analysis of mode of initial progression for patients who continued treatment beyond progression.

PURPOSE: In the randomized phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-treatment failure vs gefitinib in patients with treatment-naïve epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. We report post hoc analyses of tolerability-guided dose adjustment for afatinib and summarize the clinical characteristics of patients who continued afatinib/gefitinib beyond initial radiological progression in LUX-Lung 7. METHODS: Patients received afatinib 40 mg/day or gefitinib 250 mg/day until investigator-assessed progression or beyond if beneficial. In case of selected treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), the afatinib dose could be reduced by 10-mg decrements to minimum 20 mg (only dose interruptions were permitted with gefitinib). RESULTS: All randomized patients were treated (afatinib, n = 160; gefitinib, n = 159). Sixty-three patients had afatinib dose reduction (< 40 mg/day; 47 within first 6 months). Dose reduction decreased TRAE incidence/severity (before vs after; all grade/grade 3: 100.0%/63.5% vs 90.5%/23.8%). There was no evidence of significant difference in PFS for patients who received < 40 mg/day vs ≥ 40 mg/day for the first 6 months [median: 12.8 vs 11.0 months; hazard ratio 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.90-2.00)]. Twenty-four and 26 patients continued afatinib and gefitinib, respectively, beyond progression in target lesions; median time from nadir of target lesion diameters to initial progression was 6.7 months and 5.6 months. Of these patients, ~ 70% had objective response or non-complete response/non-progressive disease in non-target lesions at initial progression. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol-defined dose adjustment of afatinib may allow patients to remain on treatment longer, maximizing clinical benefit even in the presence of radiological progression.

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.

Quality-adjusted Outcomes Stratified by Response in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Receiving First-line nab-Paclitaxel/Carboplatin or Paclitaxel/Carboplatin.

BACKGROUND: First-line nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin was associated with a significantly improved overall response rate (primary endpoint) versus paclitaxel/carboplatin in a phase III trial of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results of an analysis evaluating the correlation of response and the time to response with survival and quality-adjusted outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a landmark approach, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) were compared between patients with a confirmed partial or complete response at or before 6 weeks (≤ 6-week responders) and those without (≤ 6-week nonresponders). The outcomes were also analyzed in two 12-week landmark analyses: ≤ 12-week responders versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders and early responders (≤ 6 weeks) versus late responders (6-12 weeks) versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders. RESULTS: The median OS and PFS for the ≤ 6-week responders versus ≤ 6-week nonresponders were 14.5 versus 10.3 months (P < .001) and 5.5 versus 4.5 months (P = .002), respectively. The ≤ 6-week responders gained 2.1 months of mean Q-TWiST. The median OS and PFS for the ≤ 12-week responders versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders were 16.3 versus 8.4 months and 5.3 versus 2.8 months (both P < .001), respectively, and the ≤ 12-week responders gained 3.2 months of mean Q-TWiST. The median OS was 13.1, 16.6, and 8.4 months (P < .001), the median PFS was 4.1, 6.7, and 2.8 months (P < .001), and the mean Q-TWiST was 10.2, 11.7, and 7.8 months for the early responders, late responders, and ≤ 12-week nonresponders, respectively. Both early and late responders had significantly longer Q-TWiST compared with the ≤ 12-week nonresponders (difference, +2.4 and +3.9 months, respectively; P < .05). CONCLUSION: These results underscore response as an important surrogate for assessment of long-term treatment outcomes in advanced NSCLC.

Afatinib as First-line Treatment of Older Patients With EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Subgroup Analyses of the LUX-Lung 3, LUX-Lung 6, and LUX-Lung 7 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is approved in the US, Europe, and several other regions for first-line treatment for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC were randomized to afatinib (40 mg/d) versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (LUX-Lung 3 [LL3]) or cisplatin/gemcitabine (LUX-Lung 6 [LL6]), or versus gefitinib (250 mg/d; LUX-Lung 7 [LL7]). We report subgroup analyses according to age, including 65 years or older versus younger than 65 years (preplanned; LL3/LL6) and additional cutoffs up to 75 years and older (exploratory; LL7). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 134 of 345 (39%) and 86 of 364 (24%) patients aged 65 years and older in LL3 and LL6, median PFS was improved with afatinib versus chemotherapy (LL3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-1.03]; LL6: HR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.07-0.39]). Afatinib significantly improved OS versus chemotherapy in elderly patients with Del19+ NSCLC in LL3 (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.80]). Among the 40 of 319 patients (13%) aged 75 years or older in LL7, median PFS (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.33-1.44]) favored afatinib, consistent with the overall population. Afatinib-associated AEs in older patients were consistent with the overall populations. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses of the LL3, LL6, and LL7 trials show that afatinib is an effective and tolerable treatment for patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC, independent of age.

Turning EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer into a chronic disease: optimal sequential therapy with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Four epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and osimertinib, are currently available for the management of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with others in development. Although tumors are exquisitely sensitive to these agents, acquired resistance is inevitable. Furthermore, emerging data indicate that first- (erlotinib and gefitinib), second- (afatinib) and third-generation (osimertinib) EGFR TKIs differ in terms of efficacy and tolerability profiles. Therefore, there is a strong imperative to optimize the sequence of TKIs in order to maximize their clinical benefit. Osimertinib has demonstrated striking efficacy as a second-line treatment option in patients with T790M-positive tumors, and also confers efficacy and tolerability advantages over first-generation TKIs in the first-line setting. However, while accrual of T790M is the most predominant mechanism of resistance to erlotinib, gefitinib and afatinib, resistance mechanisms to osimertinib have not been clearly elucidated, meaning that possible therapy options after osimertinib failure are not clear. At present, few data comparing sequential regimens in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC are available and prospective clinical trials are required. This article reviews the similarities and differences between EGFR TKIs, and discusses key considerations when assessing optimal sequential therapy with these agents for the treatment of EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC.

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

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

Does EGFR Mutation Type Influence Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Advanced EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer? Analysis of Two Large, Phase III Studies Comparing Afatinib with Chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6).

INTRODUCTION: In LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumors harboring common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (Del19/L858R) and significantly improved overall survival (OS) in patients with tumors harboring Del19 mutations. Patient-reported outcomes stratified by EGFR mutation type are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Lung cancer symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) were assessed every 21 days until progression using the EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire C30 and its lung cancer-specific module, LC13. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were prespecified and included analysis of percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change over time. Global health status (GHS)/QoL was also assessed. Analyses were conducted for all patients with tumors harboring Del19 or L858R mutations and were exploratory. RESULTS: Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib more commonly improved symptoms of, delayed time to deterioration for, and was associated with better mean scores over time for cough and dyspnea in patients with Del19 or L858R mutations. All three prespecified analyses of pain showed a trend favoring afatinib over chemotherapy. In both Del19 and L858R mutations, afatinib was also associated with improvements in GHS/QoL. Longitudinal analyses demonstrated statistically significant improvements in GHS/QoL for afatinib over chemotherapy for patients with tumors harboring Del19 mutations or L858R mutations. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses suggest first-line afatinib improved lung cancer-related symptoms and GHS/QoL compared with chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with tumors harboring common EGFR mutations, with benefits in both Del19 and L858R patients. When considered with OS (Del19 patients only) and PFS benefits, these findings substantiate the value of using afatinib over chemotherapy in these patient groups.

Final results of the large-scale multinational trial PROFILE 1005: efficacy and safety of crizotinib in previously treated patients with advanced/metastatic ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib is a potent, orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report final results from PROFILE 1005, the largest clinical trial to date for an ALK inhibitor in ALK-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROFILE 1005 (NCT00932451) was a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; 3 week continuous treatment cycles) in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC after failure of ≥1 lines of systemic treatment for locally advanced/metastatic disease. Patients' tumour ALK status was initially determined by a central laboratory until a protocol amendment permitted enrolment of patients based on locally determined ALK status. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours V.1.1 and adverse events (AEs). Cancer-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were also assessed using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. RESULTS: 1069 patients were enrolled; 1066 received crizotinib. The as-treated population comprised 908 and 158 patients, in whom tumour positive ALK-status was determined centrally (± locally) or locally only, respectively. At baseline, a majority of patients were <65 years (84%), 66% were never smokers and 46% were Asian. Derived investigator-assessed ORR was 54% (95% CI 51 to 57) and 41% (95% CI 33 to 49) in the central-testing and local-testing subgroups, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs in the overall population (any grade) were vision disorder (58%), nausea (51%), diarrhoea (47%) and vomiting (47%). PRO scores demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in lung cancer symptoms and global quality of life. CONCLUSION: The efficacy, safety and PRO profiles of crizotinib in this cohort of 1066 patients with ALK-positive NSCLC are consistent with previous reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Phase 2 trial (NCT00932451); Results.

Perspectives in immunotherapy: meeting report from the "Immunotherapy Bridge", Napoli, November 30th 2016.

The complex interactions between the immune system and tumors lead the identification of key molecules that govern these interactions: immunotherapeutics were designed to overcome the mechanisms broken by tumors to evade immune destruction. After the substantial advances in melanoma, immunotherapy currently includes many other type of cancers, but the melanoma lesson is essential to progress in other type of cancers, since immunotherapy is potentially improving clinical outcome in various solid and haematologic malignancies. Monotherapy in pre-treated NSCLC is studied and the use of nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab as second-line of advanced NSCLC is demonstrated as well as first line monotherapy and combination therapy in metastatic NSCLC studied. Patients with HNSCC have immunotherapeutic promises as well: the FDA recently approved moAbs targeting immune checkpoint receptors. Nivolumab in combination with ipilumumab showed acceptable safety and encouraging antitumor activity in metastatic renal carcinoma. HCCs have significant amounts of genomic heterogeneity and multiple oncogenic pathways can be activated: the best therapeutic targets identification is ongoing. The treatment of advanced/relapsed EOC remain clearly an unmet need: a better understanding of the relevant immuno-oncologic pathways and their corresponding biomarkers are required. UC is an immunotherapy-responsive disease: after atezolizumab, three other PD-L1/PD-L1 inhibitors (nivolumab, durvalumab, and avelumab) were approved for treatment of platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy is associated with a modest response rate in metastatic breast cancer; the addition of chemotherapy is associated with higher response rates. Immunotherapy safety profile is advantageous, although, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy: boosting the immune system leads to a unique constellation of inflammatory toxicities known as immune-related Adverse Events (irAEs) that may warrant the discontinuation of therapy and/or the administration of immunosuppressive agents. Research should explore better combination with less side effects, the right duration of treatments, combination or sequencing treatments with target therapies. At present, treatment decision is based on patient's characteristics.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, with a Focus on Afatinib.

Somatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are present in around 50% of Asian patients and in 10-15% of Caucasian patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) of adenocarcinoma histology. The first-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) gefitinib and erlotinib have demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates but not overall survival (OS) benefit in randomized phase III trials when compared with platinum-doublet chemotherapy. All patients treated with EGFR-TKIs will eventually develop acquired resistance to these agents. Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, has shown in two randomly controlled trials in patients with EGFR-activating mutations, a significant improvement in PFS and health-related quality of life when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy. Afatinib improved OS in patients with Del19 mutations. In patients having progressed on first-generation EGFR-TKIs, afatinib did lead to a clinical benefit. A randomly controlled trial showed that PFS was significantly superior with afatinib vs. erlotinib in patients with squamous NSCLC in the second-line setting. A phase IIb trial comparing afatinib and gefitinib in first-line EGFR positive NSCLC showed significantly improved PFS with afatinib but OS was not significantly improved.

New developments in the treatment of advanced squamous cell lung cancer: focus on afatinib.

Until recently, few treatment options existed for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SqCC) of the lung, especially in the second-line setting following platinum-based chemotherapy. Accordingly, outcomes in this subtype of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were generally poor. In this context, the recent availability of the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab, the anti-VEGFR2 antibody ramucirumab (combined with docetaxel), and the ErbB-family blocker afatinib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory SqCC of the lung represent major advances. However, the rapid expansion of the treatment armamentarium invites many questions regarding optimal treatment choice and sequence in individual patients. This review focuses on the biologic rationale and clinical evidence to support the use of afatinib in this treatment setting, highlighting the prominent role of the ErbB-signaling cascade in SqCC tumors. The seminal Phase III LUX-Lung 8 study, on which the approval of afatinib is based, is discussed and contextualized with the emergence of immunotherapies. Finally, criteria are explored that might drive physicians' treatment decisions when considering the use of afatinib based on individual patient characteristics. Other ongoing developments in the treatment of SqCC of the lung that will lead to further options and welcome improvements in the management of this difficult-to-treat disease are summarized.

Long-term Outcomes of Induction Carboplatin and Gemcitabine Followed by Concurrent Radiotherapy With Low-dose Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine for Stage III Non-small-cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is concurrent chemo-radiation (CRT). A regimen of induction carboplatin and gemcitabine followed by CRT was developed at the McGill University Health Centre to prevent delays in treatment initiation. We report the long-term outcomes with this regimen based on a pooled analysis of both protocol patients from a phase II study and nonprotocol patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Outcomes and toxicity data were retrieved for 142 patients with stage III NSCLC: 43 patients treated on protocol between January 2003 and November 2004, and 101 patients treated off-protocol between December 2004 and August 2013. Patients received 2 cycles of carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 intravenously (IV) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, followed on day 50 by CRT, 60 Gy/30 over 6 weeks, concomitantly with 2 cycles of paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 IV and gemcitabine 100 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 23.2 months. With a median follow-up of 23.8 months, the 3-, 4-, and 5-year overall survival was 38%, 30%, and 26%, respectively. The median and 5-year progression-free survival rates were 12.5 months and 25%, respectively. Rates of grade ≥ 3 hematologic, esophageal, and respiratory toxicity were 20%, 10%, and 10%, respectively. Forty-eight patients received further lines of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The present analysis affirms the favorable toxicity profile of this novel induction chemotherapy, without apparent compromise in clinical outcomes, when compared with regimens using immediate concurrent CRT.