Making the case for EGFR TKI sequencing in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC: a GioTag study US patient analysis.

Aim: To assess time-to-treatment failure (TTF) in US patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received sequential afatinib-osimertinib treatment in the global, observational GioTag study. Patients & methods: Patients had EGFR T790M mutation-positive disease after first-line afatinib and subsequently received osimertinib. The primary outcome was TTF. Results: In 129 patients at US centers, median TTF was 28.4 months (90% CI: 27.0-34.1). Median overall survival was 47.6 months (90% CI: 35.5-51.5). Conclusion: Sequential afatinib-osimertinib in this US-treated population was associated with long median TTF and represents an effective, evidence-based treatment option for US patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC not presenting with active brain metastases or de novo T790M. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03370770 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ceritinib in patients with untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study in untreated patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-rearranged non-squamous NSCLC was done in 134 centres across 28 countries. Eligible patients were assigned via interactive response technology to oral ceritinib 750 mg/day or platinum-based chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5-6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed); randomisation was stratified by World Health Organization performance status (0 vs 1-2), previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and presence of brain metastases as per investigator's assessment at screening. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, based on all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set). Efficacy analyses were done based on the full analysis set. All safety analyses were done based on the safety set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828099. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2013, and May 11, 2015, 376 patients were randomly assigned to ceritinib (n=189) or chemotherapy (n=187). Median progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16·6 months (95% CI 12·6-27·2) in the ceritinib group and 8·1 months (5·8-11·1) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·42-0·73]; p<0·00001). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (in 160 [85%] of 189 patients), nausea (130 [69%]), vomiting (125 [66%]), and an increase in alanine aminotransferase (114 [60%]) in the ceritinib group and nausea (in 97 [55%] of 175 patients), vomiting (63 [36%]), and anaemia (62 [35%]) in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: First-line ceritinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus pemetrexed plus cisplatin as first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: cost minimization analysis in 12 European countries.

OBJECTIVE: A combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin is a standard treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer; oral vinorelbine is registered in 45 countries. Pemetrexed and cisplatin are recommended in front-line chemotherapy of non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). The objective of this study was to conduct a cost minimization analysis from the perspective of the national health service (NHS) in each of 12 European countries, based on a randomized phase II study in NS-NSCLC (NAVoTRIAL01), with 100 oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin patients (arm A) and 51 pemetrexed plus cisplatin patients (arm B). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Country-specific costs and DRG codes considered included those relating to anticancer drugs, administration settings (out-patient/in-patient/at home), serious adverse events (defined as involving hospitalization and considered due to anticancer drugs) and concomitant medications. Relevant costs were calculated based on country-specific reimbursement procedures and official tariffs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost and savings per patient. RESULTS: Using the NHS perspective, savings per patient treated with oral vinorelbine ranged from €1317 (Denmark) to €35,001 (Germany). Expressed as percentages, savings per patient treated with oral vinorelbine compared with pemetrexed ranged between 5% (France) and 83% (Czech Republic). Pooled average costs for each treatment arm across the 12 countries resulted in cost savings for payers of €12,871, favoring oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS: Given the reported efficacy with both regimens, this pan-European economic analysis provides compelling evidence supporting oral vinorelbine use over pemetrexed for the treatment of NS-NSCLC. Oral vinorelbine provides similar efficacy and an easily manageable safety profile at lower overall cost per patient treated, combined with an easier/more convenient mode of administration. Sensitivity analysis across varied scenarios demonstrated the robustness of the results. The principle weakness of our study was its reliance upon a single small scale study to provide efficacy data, since this is the only study conducted in this specific population of patients. Further large scale trials are needed to confirm these results.