Atezolizumab Plus Carboplatin and Etoposide in Patients with Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Interim Results of the MAURIS Phase IIIb Trial.

BACKGROUND: MAURIS is an Italian multicenter, open-label, phase IIIb ongoing trial, aiming at evaluating the safety and effectiveness of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide in patients with newly diagnosed, extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The primary objective is the safety evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide Q3W for 4-6 cycles in the induction phase, followed by atezolizumab maintenance Q3W. We presented the interim analysis on safety (referring to the induction phase) and clinical effectiveness, in all patients (N = 154) and in subgroups that received ≤3 (N = 23), 4 (N = 43), and 5-6 cycles (N = 89) of induction. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, 139 patients (90.3%) discontinued treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 29.9% of patients overall, and the rate was lower in patients with 5-6 cycles (19.1%) than in those with 4 (34.9%) or ≤3 (63.6%) cycles. Immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 14.9%, 15.7%, 11.6%, and 18.2% of patients, overall and by subgroup, respectively. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 10.7 and 5.5 months, respectively. Overall, 111 patients (71.6%) had a tumor response. CONCLUSIONS: Interim results provide further evidences about safety and efficacy profile of atezolizumab + carboplatin/etoposide treatment in a ES-SCLC patient population closer to that observed in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No. 2019-001146-17, NCT04028050.

Therapeutical Options in ROS1-Rearranged Advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer.

ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangements occur in 0.9-2.6% of patients with non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), conferring sensitivity to treatment with specific tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). Crizotinib, a first-generation TKI, was the first target-therapy approved for the first-line treatment of ROS1-positive NSCLC. Recently, entrectinib, a multitarget inhibitor with an anti-ROS1 activity 40 times more potent than crizotinib and better activity on the central nervous system (CNS), received approval for treatment-naive patients. After a median time-to-progression of 5.5-20 months, resistance mechanisms can occur, leading to tumor progression. Therefore, newer generation TKI with greater potency and brain penetration have been developed and are currently under investigation. This review summarizes the current knowledge on clinicopathological characteristics of ROS1-positive NSCLC and its therapeutic options.

Liquid Biopsy in NSCLC: An Investigation with Multiple Clinical Implications.

Tissue biopsy is essential for NSCLC diagnosis and treatment management. Over the past decades, liquid biopsy has proven to be a powerful tool in clinical oncology, isolating tumor-derived entities from the blood. Liquid biopsy permits several advantages over tissue biopsy: it is non-invasive, and it should provide a better view of tumor heterogeneity, gene alterations, and clonal evolution. Consequentially, liquid biopsy has gained attention as a cancer biomarker tool, with growing clinical applications in NSCLC. In the era of precision medicine based on molecular typing, non-invasive genotyping methods became increasingly important due to the great number of oncogene drivers and the small tissue specimen often available. In our work, we comprehensively reviewed established and emerging applications of liquid biopsy in NSCLC. We made an excursus on laboratory analysis methods and the applications of liquid biopsy either in early or metastatic NSCLC disease settings. We deeply reviewed current data and future perspectives regarding screening, minimal residual disease, micrometastasis detection, and their implication in adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy management. Moreover, we reviewed liquid biopsy diagnostic utility in the absence of tissue biopsy and its role in monitoring treatment response and emerging resistance in metastatic NSCLC treated with target therapy and immuno-therapy.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Evidence and Ongoing Trials.

The scenario of neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. As already happened for the advanced disease, also early stages have entered the era of precision medicine, with molecular analysis and Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) evaluation that by now can be considered a routine assessment. New treatment options have been recently approved, with osimertinib now part of clinical practice for Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor mutated (EGFRm) patients, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) available after FDA approval both in the adjuvant (atezolizumab) and neoadjuvant (nivolumab) setting. No mature data on overall survival benefits are available yet, though. Several clinical trials with specific-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and ICIs are currently ongoing, both with and without concomitant chemotherapy. As therapeutic strategies are rapidly expanding, quite a few questions remain unsettled, such as the optimal duration of adjuvant targeted therapy or the effective benefit of ICIs in early-stage EGFRm or ALK (Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase) rearranged patients, or the possibility to individuate high-risk patients after surgical resection assessing minimal residual disease (MRD) by ctDNA evaluation. We hereby report already available literature data and summarize ongoing trials with targeted therapy and immunotherapy in early-stage NSCLC, focusing on practice-changing results and new perspectives for potentially cured patients.

NSCLC as the Paradigm of Precision Medicine at Its Finest: The Rise of New Druggable Molecular Targets for Advanced Disease.

Standard treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) historically consisted of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy until the early 2000s, when precision medicine led to a revolutionary change in the therapeutic scenario. The identification of oncogenic driver mutations in EGFR, ALK and ROS1 rearrangements identified a subset of patients who largely benefit from targeted agents. However, since the proportion of patients with druggable alterations represents a minority, the discovery of new potential driver mutations is still an urgent clinical need. We provide a comprehensive review of the emerging molecular targets in NSCLC and their applications in the advanced setting.

The Change in Paradigm for NSCLC Patients with EML4-ALK Translocation.

The severe prognosis linked with a lung cancer diagnosis has changed with the discovery of oncogenic molecularly driven subgroups and the use of tailored treatment. ALK-translocated advanced lung cancer is the most interesting model, having achieved the longest overall survival. Here, we report the most important paradigmatic shifts in the prognosis and treatment for this subgroup population occurred among lung cancer.

Brain Metastases Management in Oncogene-Addicted Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Targeted Therapies Era.

The therapeutic landscape in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring oncogenic biomarkers has radically changed with the development of targeted therapies. Although lung cancers are known to frequently metastasize to the brain, oncogene-driven non-small-cell lung cancer patients show a higher incidence of both brain metastases at baseline and a further risk of central nervous system progression/relapse. Recently, a new generation of targeted agents, highly active in the central nervous system, has improved the control of intracranial disease. The intracranial activity of these drugs poses a crucial issue in determining the optimal management sequence in oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases, with a potential change of paradigm from primary brain irradiation to central nervous system penetrating targeted inhibitors.

Bone Metastasis and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Microenvironment and Possible Clinical Implications.

Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop bone metastasis (BoM) in more than 50% of cases during the course of the disease. This metastatic site can lead to the development of skeletal related events (SREs), such as severe pain, pathological fractures, spinal compression, and hypercalcemia, which reduce the patient's quality of life. Recently, the treatment of advanced NSCLC has radically changed due to the advent of immunotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) alone or in combination with chemotherapy have become the main therapeutic strategy for advanced or metastatic NSCLC without driver gene mutations. Since survival has increased, it has become even more important to treat bone metastasis to prevent SRE. We know that the presence of bone metastasis is a negative prognostic factor. The lower efficacy of immunotherapy treatments in BoM+ patients could be induced by the presence of a particular immunosuppressive tumor and bone microenvironment. This article reviews the most important pre-clinical and clinical scientific evidence on the reasons for this lower sensitivity to immunotherapy and the need to combine bone target therapies (BTT) with immunotherapy to improve patient outcome.

Acquired Resistance to Osimertinib in EGFR-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: How Do We Overcome It?

Osimertinib is currently the preferred first-line therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and the standard second-line therapy in T790M-positive patients in progression to previous EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Osimertinib is a highly effective treatment that shows a high response rate and long-lasting disease control. However, a resistance to the treatment inevitably develops among patients. Understanding the secondary mechanisms of resistance and the possible therapeutic options available is crucial to define the best management of patients in progression to osimertinib. We provide a comprehensive review of the emerging molecular resistance mechanism in EGFR-mutated NSCLC pre-treated with osimertinib and its future treatment applications.

Prognostic Role of Circulating Tumor Cells in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Large, Multicenter, Prospective Trial.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) correlate with adverse prognosis in patients with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Little data are available for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a multicenter prospective observational study to assess the correlation between CTC counts and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic RCC treated with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor as a first-line regimen; overall survival (OS) and response were secondary objectives. CTC counts were enumerated by the CellSearch system at four time points: day 0 of treatment, day 28, day 56 and then at progression, or at 12 months in the absence of progression. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five eligible patients with a median age of 69 years were treated with sunitinib (77.5%) or pazopanib (21%). At baseline, 46.7% of patients had one or more CTCs per milliliter (range, 1 to 263). Thirty patients had at least three CTCs, with a median PFS of 5.8 versus 15 months in the remaining patients (p = .002; hazard ratio [HR], 1.99), independently of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-3.14). Patients with at least three CTCs had a shorter estimated OS of 13.8 months versus 52.8 months in those with fewer than three CTCs (p = .003; HR, 1.99; multivariate analysis HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95-2.93). Baseline CTC counts did not correlate with response; neither did having CTC sequencing counts greater than or equal to one, two, three, four, or five. CONCLUSION: We provide prospective evidence that the presence of three or more CTCs at baseline is associated with a significantly shorter PFS and OS in patients with metastatic RCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This prospective study evaluated whether the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the peripheral blood correlates with activity of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study demonstrated that almost half of patients with metastatic RCC have at least one CTC in their blood and that those patients with at least three CTCs are at increased risk of early progressive disease and early death due to RCC. Studies incorporating CTC counts in the prognostic algorithms of metastatic RCC are warranted.

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

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

Safety and Efficacy of Tivozanib in First-Line mRCC: A Multicenter Compassionate-Use Study (Meet-Uro 16).

INTRODUCTION: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR-1), VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3, recently approved in Europe for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of safety and activity of tivozanib administered at 1.34 mg daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off) within a compassionate-use program to patients with mRCC with no prior systemic treatment in Italy. RESULTS: From August 2018 to April 2019, 64 patients have started tivozanib in 9 oncology units. The median age was 67.5 years (range 40-85), 62.5% males. According to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, 27.1% of patients were good prognosis, 57.6% intermediate, and 15.3% poor. Primary tumor had been removed in 71.9% of patients. Histology was clear cell 89%, papillary 4.7%, and unclassified 6.3%. The response rate was 34.4%, stable disease 40.6%, and progression 15.6%. Grade 3-4 toxicities were 7.8% hypertension, 4.7% anemia, 3.1% mucositis, 3.1% asthenia, 1.6% diarrhea, 1.6% anorexia, 1.6% worsening of renal function, and 3.1% cardiac events. Dose reduction to 0.89 mg was applied to 17.2% of patients, and the discontinuation rate due to toxicity was 5.8%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months, with 68.7% of patients alive at 12 months. The developing of hypertension predicted increased progression-free survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 0.128; 95% CI, 0.03-0.59; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib showed good activity and favorable safety profile in a real-world cohort of unselected patients with mRCC. Predictive biomarkers of response to antiangiogenic therapy are urgently needed in order to identify RCC patients who could still receive a monotherapy with VEGFR inhibitors in the first line.

Is multidisciplinary management possible in the treatment of lung cancer? A report from three Italian meetings.

PURPOSE: To report criticisms and barriers to the "real-life" application of international guidelines and recent developments in the management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Italy. METHODS: Three 2-day courses were organized. During the first day, experts in different fields of thoracic oncology gave their lecture on diagnosis and therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. During the second day, all participants were divided into four groups to discuss on a clinical case as a multidisciplinary team (MDT). The aim was to stimulate the discussion on practical issues in the management of NSCLC patients in the real-life practice. RESULTS: A total of 196 physicians were involved in the courses as learners. Invasive diagnosis of nodal disease for staging purposes, a priori definition of "surgical resectability" and a regular MDT with all crucial participants available were the three main key points identified for a good management of these patients. The main barriers to the clinical application of a good diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the patient were the absence of a regular and complete MDT in the South and Centre of Italy, while in the North of Italy, time for discussion of clinical cases in the MDT and waiting lists for staging and therapeutic interventions were deemed as the major concerns. CONCLUSION: The meetings showed that diagnosis and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC are still extremely variable between different Italian regions. Logistic issues, waiting lists, paucity of well-trained staff and expertise seem to be the main barriers to international guidelines application.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: real-world results from an expanded access programme.

OBJECTIVE: To report the safety and efficacy results of patients enrolled in the Italian Nivolumab Renal Cell Cancer Expanded Access Programme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were eligible to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Patients included in the analysis had received ≥1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for adverse events (AEs) using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016, of whom 18% were aged ≥75 years, 6.7% had non-clear cell RCC, 49.6% had bone and 8.2% brain metastases, and 79% had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were fatigue (13%) and rash (9%). Twenty-two patients (5.7%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. The objective response rate was 23.1%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-6.2) and the 12-month overall survival rate was 63%. Similar survival rates were reported among patients with non-clear-cell histology, elderly patients, those with bone and/or brain metastases, and those who had received prior first-line sunitinib or pazopanib, or prior everolimus. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy observed were consistent with those reported in the pivotal Checkmate 025 trial. Results in patients with non-clear-cell mRCC who were elderly, pretreated with everolimus, and had bone and/or brain metastases encourage the use of nivolumab in these categories of patients.

NGR-hTNF in combination with best investigator choice in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma (NGR015): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with highly vascularised tumours. It has poor prognosis and few treatment options after failure of first-line chemotherapy. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting drug that increases penetration of intratumoral chemotherapy and T-cell infiltration by modifying the tumour microenvironment. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of NGR-hTNF in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had progressed during or after a first-line treatment. METHODS: NGR015 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done in 41 centres in 12 countries. Eligible participants had malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histological subtype (epithelial, sarcomatoid, or mixed), were aged 18 years or older, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and radiologically documented progressive disease after one pemetrexed-based chemotherapy regimen. Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly NGR-hTNF 0·8 µg/m2 intravenously plus best investigator choice (n=200), or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). Best investigator choice was decided before random assignment and could be single-agent gemcitabine (1000-1250 mg/m2 intravenously), vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 intravenously or 60 mg/m2 orally), doxorubicin (60-75 mg/m2 intravenously), or best supportive care only. Patients were randomised (1:1) with a block size of four after stratification for performance status and best investigator choice. The primary study endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01098266). FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2010 and Jan 21, 2013, we enrolled 400 eligible participants. 381 (95%) of 400 patients were selected to receive chemotherapy before all participants were randomly assigned to receive NGF-hTNF plus best investigator choice (n=200) or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). At the cutoff date (April 29, 2014), the median follow-up was 18·7 months (IQR 15·1-24·4), and overall survival did not differ between the two treatment groups (median 8·5 months [95% CI 7·2-9·9] in the NGR-hTNF group vs 8·0 months [6·6-8·9] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·75-1·18; p=0·58). Grade 3 or worse study-emergent adverse events occurred in 136 (70%) of patients receiving NGR-hTNF versus 118 (61%) of patients receiving placebo, with the most common being neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients vs 36 [19%] of 193 patients), pain (11 [6%] vs 16 [8%]), dyspnoea (nine [5%] vs seven [4%]), and chills (nine [5%] vs none). 50 (26%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group had a serious adverse event, compared with 47 (24%) in the placebo group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 17 (9%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group and 20 patients (10%) in the placebo group. There were 12 deaths in the NGR-hTNF group and 13 deaths in the placebo group, but none were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. The hypothesis-generating findings from the subgroup analyses deserve a confirmatory randomised trial because patients who rapidly progress after first-line treatment have a poor prognosis. FUNDING: MolMed.

Lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a global phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation inhibitor of ALK and ROS1 tyrosine kinases with broad coverage of ALK mutations. In a phase 1 study, activity was seen in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, most of whom had CNS metastases and progression after ALK-directed therapy. We aimed to analyse the overall and intracranial antitumour activity of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, patients with histologically or cytologically ALK-positive or ROS1-positive, advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2, and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Patients were enrolled into six different expansion cohorts (EXP1-6) on the basis of ALK and ROS1 status and previous therapy, and were given lorlatinib 100 mg orally once daily continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response by independent central review, assessed in pooled subgroups of ALK-positive patients. Analyses of activity and safety were based on the safety analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib) as assessed by independent central review. Patients with measurable CNS metastases at baseline by independent central review were included in the intracranial activity analyses. In this report, we present lorlatinib activity data for the ALK-positive patients (EXP1-5 only), and safety data for all treated patients (EXP1-6). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2015, and Oct 3, 2016, 276 patients were enrolled: 30 who were ALK positive and treatment naive (EXP1); 59 who were ALK positive and received previous crizotinib without (n=27; EXP2) or with (n=32; EXP3A) previous chemotherapy; 28 who were ALK positive and received one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy (EXP3B); 112 who were ALK positive with two (n=66; EXP4) or three (n=46; EXP5) previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with or without chemotherapy; and 47 who were ROS1 positive with any previous treatment (EXP6). One patient in EXP4 died before receiving lorlatinib and was excluded from the safety analysis set. In treatment-naive patients (EXP1), an objective response was achieved in 27 (90·0%; 95% CI 73·5-97·9) of 30 patients. Three patients in EXP1 had measurable baseline CNS lesions per independent central review, and objective intracranial responses were observed in two (66·7%; 95% CI 9·4-99·2). In ALK-positive patients with at least one previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP2-5), objective responses were achieved in 93 (47·0%; 39·9-54·2) of 198 patients and objective intracranial response in those with measurable baseline CNS lesions in 51 (63·0%; 51·5-73·4) of 81 patients. Objective response was achieved in 41 (69·5%; 95% CI 56·1-80·8) of 59 patients who had only received previous crizotinib (EXP2-3A), nine (32·1%; 15·9-52·4) of 28 patients with one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP3B), and 43 (38·7%; 29·6-48·5) of 111 patients with two or more previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EXP4-5). Objective intracranial response was achieved in 20 (87·0%; 95% CI 66·4-97·2) of 23 patients with measurable baseline CNS lesions in EXP2-3A, five (55·6%; 21·2-86·3) of nine patients in EXP3B, and 26 (53·1%; 38·3-67·5) of 49 patients in EXP4-5. The most common treatment-related adverse events across all patients were hypercholesterolaemia (224 [81%] of 275 patients overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4) and hypertriglyceridaemia (166 [60%] overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (7%) of 275 patients and seven patients (3%) permanently discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Consistent with its broad ALK mutational coverage and CNS penetration, lorlatinib showed substantial overall and intracranial activity both in treatment-naive patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, and in those who had progressed on crizotinib, second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or after up to three previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Thus, lorlatinib could represent an effective treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in first-line or subsequent therapy. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Ceritinib compassionate use for patients with crizotinib-refractory, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

AIM: Ceritinib was evaluated within a compassionate use program of Italian patients. PATIENTS & METHODS: 70 patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer received ceritinib. RESULTS: Overall response was 40.6%, median progression-free survival was 8.2 months and median survival was 15.5 months. Dose reduction due to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 50.8% of patients starting at 750 mg/day. No significantly different progression-free survival was observed between patients who underwent any time dose reduction (n = 38) versus those who remained on the recommended dose of 750 mg/day (n = 32; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of ceritinib compassionate use program resembled that of clinical trials. Dose reductions and adjustments did not appear to negatively affect clinical outcome.

Ceritinib versus chemotherapy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer previously given chemotherapy and crizotinib (ASCEND-5): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK-rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking [block size of four]; stratified by WHO performance status [0 vs 1-2] and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 [investigator choice], every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828112, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 [34%] to pemetrexed, 73 [63%] to docetaxel, and three [3%] discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5-21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months [95% CI 4·1-6·9] for ceritinib vs 1·6 months [1·4-2·8] for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 [0·36-0·67]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 [11%] in the ceritinib group vs 12 [11%] in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 [21%] of 115 vs two [2%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 [21%] vs one [1%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 [14%] vs one [1%] in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one [7%] cerebrovascular accident and one [7%] respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): a multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma. METHODS: DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8-8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9-8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·76-1·12], p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 [9%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 [14%] patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (26 [7%] vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 [18%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs one [<1%] patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [8%] vs 24 [13%]), and colitis (24 [6%] vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three [1%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs two [1%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three [1%] vs two [1%]); respiratory failure (one [<1%] vs three [2%]), myocardial infarction (three [1%] vs none), lung infection (three [1%] patients vs none), cardiac failure (one [<1%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (two [<1%] vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient. INTERPRETATION: Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.