RESILIENT part 1: a phase 2 dose-exploration and dose-expansion study of second-line liposomal irinotecan in adults with small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: RESILIENT (NCT03088813) is a phase 2/3 study assessing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of liposomal irinotecan monotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression on/after first-line platinum-based therapy. Here, we present results from RESILIENT part 1. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, safety run-in evaluation with dose-exploration and dose-expansion phases included patients ≥18 years old with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1; those with asymptomatic central nervous system metastases were eligible. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability and recommend a dose for further development. Efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: During dose exploration, 5 patients received intravenous liposomal irinotecan at 85 mg/m2 (deemed not tolerable; dose-limiting toxicity) and 12 patients received 70 mg/m2 (deemed tolerable). During dose expansion, 13 additional patients received intravenous liposomal irinotecan at 70 mg/m2 . Of these 25 patients (median age [range], 59.0 [48.0-73.0] years, 92.0% with metastatic disease), 10 experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most commonly diarrhea (20.0%) and neutropenia (16.0%), and 3 had serious treatment-related TEAEs, of whom 2 died. ORR was 44.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.40-65.07; 1 complete response, 10 partial responses) and median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 3.98 (1.45-4.24) months and 8.08 (5.16-9.82) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, no new safety signals were identified with liposomal irinotecan, and antitumor activity was promising. RESILIENT part 2, a randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of liposomal irinotecan versus topotecan, is ongoing. LAY SUMMARY: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive disease with few treatment options after platinum-based therapy. Administering 1 option, irinotecan, as a "liposomal" formulation, may extend drug exposure and improve outcomes. The RESILIENT part 1 trial assessed the safety and efficacy of liposomal irinotecan in 25 adults with SCLC after disease progression despite platinum-based therapy. No new safety concerns were reported. The most common moderate-to-severe side effects were diarrhea (20% of patients) and neutropenia (16%). Tumors responded to treatment in 44% of patients. Average survival was 8.08 months, and time to disease progression was 3.98 months. Liposomal irinotecan trials are ongoing.

Erlotinib plus either pazopanib or placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial with correlated serum proteomic signatures.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with progressive-stage IV NSCLC after either 1 or 2 previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized to receive erlotinib (150 mg by mouth daily) with either pazopanib (600 mg by mouth daily) or placebo. During treatment, patients were evaluated every 8 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After a study amendment, pretreatment serum specimens for the VeriStrat assay were collected. The predictive value of the VeriStrat score (good vs poor) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the overall population and in each treatment group. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two eligible patients were randomized between February 2010 and February 2011. PFS was prolonged with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo (median, 2.6 vs 1.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .001). There was no difference in the OS of the 2 groups. A good VeriStrat score predicted longer PFS and OS in the entire group and predicted longer PFS in the subgroup receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib. The addition of pazopanib increased toxicity, and this was consistent with the known toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pazopanib to erlotinib in an unselected group of patients with previously treated NSCLC improved PFS and increased treatment-related toxicity, but it had no influence on OS. The efficacy of both regimens was modest. Patients receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib had longer PFS if they had a good VeriStrat score versus a poor one. Cancer 2018;124:2355-64. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

RESILIENT Part 2: A Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Study of Liposomal Irinotecan Versus Topotecan in Adults With Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III RESILIENT trial compared second-line liposomal irinotecan with topotecan in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with SCLC and progression on or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous (IV) liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2 every 2 weeks in a 6-week cycle) or IV topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 daily for 5 consecutive days, every 3 weeks in a 6-week cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Among 461 randomly assigned patients, 229 received liposomal irinotecan and 232 received topotecan. The median follow-up was 18.4 months. The median OS was 7.9 months with liposomal irinotecan versus 8.3 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.37]; P = .31). The median PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.0 months with liposomal irinotecan and 3.3 months with topotecan (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.20]; nominal P = .71); ORR per BICR was 44.1% (95% CI, 37.6 to 50.8) and 21.6% (16.4 to 27.4), respectively. Overall, 42.0% and 83.4% of patients receiving liposomal irinotecan and topotecan, respectively, experienced grade ≥3 related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The most common grade ≥3 related TEAEs were diarrhea (13.7%), neutropenia (8.0%), and decreased neutrophil count (4.4%) with liposomal irinotecan and neutropenia (51.6%), anemia (30.9%), and leukopenia (29.1%) with topotecan. CONCLUSION: Liposomal irinotecan and topotecan demonstrated similar median OS and PFS in patients with relapsed SCLC. Although the primary end point of OS was not met, liposomal irinotecan demonstrated a higher ORR than topotecan. The safety profile of liposomal irinotecan was consistent with its known safety profile; no new safety concerns emerged.

Randomized Phase 2 Studies of Checkpoint Inhibitors Alone or in Combination With Pegilodecakin in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC (CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2).

INTRODUCTION: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been approved to treat metastatic NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI suggested promising efficacy in phase 1 IVY, providing rationale for randomized phase 2 trials CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2. METHODS: CYPRESS 1 (N = 101) and CYPRESS 2 (N = 52) included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 and first-line/second-line metastatic NSCLC, respectively, without known EGFR/ALK mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1; control arms received pembrolizumab (CYPRESS 1) or nivolumab (CYPRESS 2); experimental arms received pegilodecakin + CPI. Patients had programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of greater than or equal to 50% (CYPRESS 1) or 0% to 49% (CYPRESS 2). Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per investigator. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory end points included immune activation biomarkers. RESULTS: Median follow-up for CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2 was 10.0 and 11.6 months, respectively. Results for pegilodecakin + pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 47% versus 44% (OR = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-2.5); median PFS 6.3 versus 6.1 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.937, 95% CI: 0.54-1.625); and median OS 16.3 months versus not reached (HR = 1.507, 95% CI: 0.708-3.209). Results per blinded independent central review were consistent. Treatment discontinuation rate owing to adverse events (AEs) doubled in the experimental arm (32% versus 15%). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (62% versus 19%) included anemia (20% versus 0%) and thrombocytopenia (12% versus 2%). Results for pegilodecakin + nivolumab versus nivolumab were as follows: ORR per investigator 15% versus 12% (OR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.3-5.9); median PFS 1.9 versus 1.9 months (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.519-1.951); and median OS 6.7 versus 10.7 months (HR = 1.871, 95% CI: 0.772-4.532). AEs with grade greater than or equal to 3 treatment-related AEs (70.4% versus 16.7%) included anemia (40.7% versus 0%), fatigue (18% versus 0%), and thrombocytopenia (14.8% versus 0%). Biomarker data suggested activation of immunostimulatory signals of interleukin-10R pathway in pegilodecakin-containing arms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of biological effect in peripheral blood, adding pegilodecakin to CPI did not improve ORR, PFS, or OS, in first-line/second-line NSCLC. Pegilodecakin + CPI has been found to have overall higher toxicity compared with CPI alone, leading to doubling of treatment discontinuation rate owing to AEs.

Amrubicin and carboplatin with pegfilgrastim in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: First-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) includes treatment with platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Amrubicin is a synthetic anthracycline with single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory SCLC. In an attempt to improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated amrubicin/carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-stage SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter phase II trial, patients received amrubicin (30 mg/m2 daily on Days 1, 2, and 3) and carboplatin (AUC = 5 on Day 1); cycles were repeated every 21 days for 4 cycles. Pegfilgrastim (6 mg subcutaneously) was administered on Day 4 of all cycles. Overall survival (OS) proportion at 1 year was the primary endpoint. The target 1-year OS rate was 47%, an improvement of 35% from historical results with carboplatin/etoposide. RESULTS: Eighty patients received study treatment, and 62% completed the planned 4 courses. The overall response rate was 74% (13% complete responses). The 1-year survival rate was 38% (95% CI: 25, 50). The median survival was 10 months. Myelosuppression was severe but manageable. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of amrubicin/carboplatin was an active first-line treatment for extensive stage SCLC, but showed no indication of increased efficacy compared to standard treatments. Severe myelosuppression was common with this regimen, in spite of prophylactic pegfilgrastim. These results are consistent with those of other trials in showing no role for amrubicin in the first-line treatment of SCLC.

Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus paclitaxel/topotecan for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network randomized, prospective phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the combination of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, http://www.bms.com) and topotecan (Hycamtin; Glaxo SmithKline, Philadelphia, http://www.gsk.com) with paclitaxel, carboplatin (Paraplatin; Bristol-Myers Squibb), and etoposide (Etopophos, VePesid; Bristol-Myers Squibb) in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II trial, 120 patients were randomly allocated to receive either topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1, 2, and 3) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1) every 21 days orpaclitaxe l (200 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1), carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 6 i.v. day 1), and etoposide (50 mg/100 mg alternating daily by mouth days 1-10) every 21 days, each regimen for a maximum of eight cycles. The primary end points were objective response rate and time to progression. RESULTS: The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a significantly higher overall response rate (78% versus 48%), longer median time to progression (7.6 months versus 5.5 months), and greater number of patients free from progression at 1 year (14% versus 8%) compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. There was no difference in overall survival. Toxicities were similar in the two treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The paclitaxel-carboplatin-etoposide combination produced a superior overall response rate and time to progression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer compared with paclitaxel plus topotecan. The platinum compounds continue to be a necessary component of the initial therapy for these patients.