Interactions between the gut bacterial community of Exopalaemon carinicauda and infection by Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei.

To explore the relationship between the intestinal flora of Exopalaemon Carinicauda and infection by Enterocytozoo Hepatopenaei (EHP), we analyzed the species and richness of gut microbiota in infected individuals in different EHP load groups [i.e., control (C), high load (H), and low load (L)] using gene sequencing after infection. The results showed that the abundance of intestinal flora in the high-load EHP group was significantly lower than that in the healthy group. Based on the UPGMA cluster tree and PCoA analysis, with comparisons to healthy shrimp, the gut microbiota of the EHP high load and low load groups were clustered into one branch, which indicated that EHP infection changed the composition of the gut microbiota of infected shrimps. The heat map analysis of species abundance clustering revealed that the dominant bacteria in the low EHP load group and the control group were beneficial genera such as Lactococcus, Ligilactobacillius, and Bifidobacterium, but the dominant bacteria in the high EHP load group were harmful genera such as Pseudomonas, Photobacterium, and Candidatus hepatincola. The functions of the intestinal flora predicted that most genes related to metabolism were more abundant in healthy shrimp, most genes related to metabolism and the organisms' system were more abundant in the low EHP load group, and most genes related to diseases and environmental information processing were more abundant in the high EHP load group. After separation and purification, the dominant bacteria (Bifidobacterium animalis in healthy shrimp and Lactococcus garvieae in the low EHP load group) and the non-dominant bacteria (Macrococus caseolyticus in the low EHP load group) were obtained. Each of these isolated strains were used together with EHP to infect E. carinicauda, and the results showed that Bifidobacterium animali and Lactococcus garvieae significantly reduced the EHP load in EHP-infected individuals. At the same time, the morphology and structure of the hepatopancreas and intestinal tissue of EHP-infected E. carinicauda were improved. No improvement was seen in tissue that was infected with Macrococus caseolyticus.

Molecular classification and biomarkers of outcome with immunotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: analyses of the CASPIAN phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: We explored potential predictive biomarkers of immunotherapy response in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) treated with durvalumab (D) + tremelimumab (T) + etoposide-platinum (EP), D + EP, or EP in the randomized phase 3 CASPIAN trial. METHODS: 805 treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to receive D + T + EP, D + EP, or EP. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Patients were required to provide an archived tumor tissue block (or ≥ 15 newly cut unstained slides) at screening, if these samples existed. After assessment for programmed cell death ligand-1 expression and tissue tumor mutational burden, residual tissue was used for additional molecular profiling including by RNA sequencing and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: In 182 patients with transcriptional molecular subtyping, OS with D ± T + EP was numerically highest in the SCLC-inflamed subtype (n = 10, median 24.0 months). Patients derived benefit from immunotherapy across subtypes; thus, additional biomarkers were investigated. OS benefit with D ± T + EP versus EP was greater with high versus low CD8A expression/CD8 cell density by immunohistochemistry, but with no additional benefit with D + T + EP versus D + EP. OS benefit with D + T + EP versus D + EP was associated with high expression of CD4 (median 25.9 vs. 11.4 months) and antigen-presenting and processing machinery (25.9 vs. 14.6 months) and MHC I and II (23.6 vs. 17.3 months) gene signatures, and with higher MHC I expression by immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the tumor microenvironment is important in mediating better outcomes with D ± T + EP in ES-SCLC, with canonical immune markers associated with hypothesized immunotherapy mechanisms of action defining patient subsets that respond to D ± T. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872.

Durvalumab in combination with chemoradiotherapy for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from the phase 1 CLOVER study.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), current standard of care is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) followed by consolidation durvalumab. However, earlier initiation of durvalumab simultaneously with cCRT may increase antitumor activity relative to initiation after cCRT. The phase 1 CLOVER study (NCT03509012) evaluated durvalumab combined with cCRT in patients with advanced solid tumors; we report findings from the NSCLC cohort. METHODS: CLOVER comprised a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment part, followed by an expansion part. In the NSCLC cohort, patients with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III NSCLC were enrolled in three treatment arms: durvalumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) + cisplatin + etoposide + radiotherapy (Arm 1); durvalumab Q4W + carboplatin + paclitaxel + radiotherapy (Arm 2); or durvalumab Q4W + carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed + radiotherapy (non-squamous histology only; Arm 3). Patients received durvalumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled: 21, 22, and 21 in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively. One patient in Arm 1 had DLT (grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase increase and grade 4 alanine aminotransferase increase); no DLTs were observed in Arms 2 or 3. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 76.6 % of patients overall; the most common were neutropenia (51.6 %), leukopenia (20.3 %), and anemia (17.2 %). In a post-hoc analysis, 7.8 % of patients had grade 3 pneumonitis/radiation pneumonitis (grouped term) events. Overall, the objective response rate was 60.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 47.9-72.9); median duration of response was 15.8 months (95 % CI, 9.0-not estimable [NE]). Median progression-free survival was 13.4 months (95 % CI, 8.8-20.1) and median overall survival was not reached (95 % CI, 21.9-NE). CONCLUSION: Durvalumab in combination with cCRT was well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and showed encouraging antitumor activity in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC.

Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab + Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (CASPIAN): Outcomes by PD-L1 Expression and Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden.

PURPOSE: In the CASPIAN trial, first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We report exploratory analyses of CASPIAN outcomes by programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and tissue tumor mutational burden (tTMB). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab (1,500 mg) plus EP, durvalumab plus tremelimumab (75 mg) plus EP, or EP alone. Treatment effects in PD-L1 and tTMB subgroups were estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PD-L1 and tTMB biomarker-evaluable populations (BEP) comprised 54.4% (438/805) and 35.2% (283/805) of the intention-to-treat population, respectively. PD-L1 prevalence was low: 5.7%, 25.8%, and 28.3% had PD-L1 expression on ≥1% tumor cells (TC), ≥1% immune cells (IC), and ≥1% TCs or ICs, respectively. OS benefit with durvalumab plus EP versus EP was similar across PD-L1 subgroups, with HRs all falling within the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PD-L1 BEP (0.47‒0.79). OS benefit with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP versus EP was greater in PD-L1 ≥1% versus <1% subgroups, although CIs overlapped. There was no evidence of an interaction between tTMB and treatment effect on OS (durvalumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.916; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus EP vs. EP, P = 0.672). CONCLUSIONS: OS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP in patients with ES-SCLC was observed regardless of PD-L1 or tTMB status. PD-L1 expression may prove to be a useful biomarker for combined treatment with PD-(L)1 and CTLA-4 inhibition, although this requires confirmation with an independent dataset. See related commentary by Rolfo and Russo, p. 652.

Impact of Brain Metastases on Treatment Patterns and Outcomes With First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide in Extensive-Stage SCLC (CASPIAN): A Brief Report.

Introduction: In the phase 3 study involving the use of durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in untreated extensive-stage SCLC (CASPIAN study), first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus EP alone (p = 0.0047). We report exploratory subgroup analyses of treatment patterns and outcomes according to the presence of baseline brain or central nervous system metastases. Methods: Patients (WHO performance status 0 or 1), including those with asymptomatic or treated-and-stable brain metastases, were randomized to four cycles of durvalumab plus EP followed by maintenance durvalumab until progression or up to six cycles of EP and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation. Prespecified analyses of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in subgroups with or without brain metastases used unstratified-Cox proportional hazards models. The data cutoff was on January 27, 2020. Results: At baseline, 28 out of 268 patients (10.4%) in the durvalumab plus EP arm and 27 out of 269 patients (10.0%) in the EP arm had known brain metastases, of whom 3 of 28 (10.7%) and 4 of 27 (14.8%) had previous brain radiotherapy, respectively. Durvalumab plus EP (versus EP alone) prolonged OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) in patients with (0.79, 0.44-1.41) or without (0.76, 0.62-0.92) brain metastases, with similar PFS results (0.73, 0.42-1.29 and 0.80, 0.66-0.97, respectively). Among patients without brain metastases, similar proportions in each arm developed new brain lesions as part of their first progression (8.8% and 9.5%), although 8.3% in the EP arm received prophylactic cranial irradiation. Similar proportions in each arm received subsequent brain radiotherapy (20.5% and 21.2%), although more common in patients with than without baseline brain metastases (45.5% and 18.0%). Conclusions: The OS and PFS benefit with first-line durvalumab plus EP were maintained irrespective of the presence of brain metastases, further supporting its standard-of-care use.

First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: CASPIAN Japan subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 CASPIAN study (NCT03043872), first-line durvalumab plus etoposide and cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved OS versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage (ES)-SCLC (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.59-0.91; p = 0.0047]). Here we report results for a preplanned subgroup analysis of patients recruited in Japan. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC received either 4 cycles of durvalumab 1500 mg plus EP q3w followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg q4w until disease progression or up to 6 cycles of EP q3w. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: In the Japan subgroup, 18 patients were randomized to durvalumab plus EP and 16 patients to EP. At the interim analysis with a median follow-up of 12.5 months in the subgroup, OS numerically favored durvalumab plus EP versus EP (HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.26‒2.26]; median not reached vs 15.2 months). PFS was similar for durvalumab plus EP versus EP (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.43‒1.89]). Confirmed ORR was 89% with durvalumab plus EP versus 69% with EP. Adverse events (AEs) of CTCAE grade 3 or 4 were reported in 78% versus 94% of patients in the durvalumab plus EP versus EP arms. There were no AEs leading to treatment discontinuation or death in the Japan subgroup. CONCLUSION: First-line durvalumab plus EP was effective and well tolerated in Japanese patients with ES-SCLC. Despite the small size of the Japan subgroup, results were generally consistent with the global study population.

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone. METHODS: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomized, controlled, open-label, phase III study.

OBJECTIVES: In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab plus etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (primary endpoint) versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) at the interim analysis. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC received 4 cycles of durvalumab plus EP every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab every 4 weeks until progression, or up to 6 cycles of EP every 3 weeks. PROs, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13), were prespecified secondary endpoints. Changes from baseline to disease progression or 12 months in prespecified key disease-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain, fatigue, appetite loss) were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization was analyzed. RESULTS: In the durvalumab plus EP and EP arms, 261 and 260 patients were PRO-evaluable. Patients in both arms experienced numerically reduced symptom burden over 12 months or until progression for key symptoms. For the improvements from baseline in appetite loss, the between-arm difference was statistically significant, favoring durvalumab plus EP (difference, -4.5; 99% CI: -9.04, -0.04; nominal p = 0.009). Patients experienced longer TTD with durvalumab plus EP versus EP for all symptoms (hazard ratio [95% CI] for key symptoms: cough 0.78 [0.600‒1.026]; dyspnea 0.79 [0.625‒1.006]; chest pain 0.76 [0.575‒0.996]; fatigue 0.82 [0.653‒1.027]; appetite loss 0.70 [0.542‒0.899]), functioning, and global health status/QoL. CONCLUSION: Addition of durvalumab to first-line EP maintained QoL and delayed worsening of patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with EP.

Design and Rationale for a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Patients With Limited-stage Small-cell Lung Cancer: The ADRIATIC Study.

Limited-stage (LS) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains an area of high unmet medical need. The standard-of-care therapy comprises curative-intent platinum-based chemotherapy with concurrent radiotherapy (cCRT), which can be followed by prophylactic brain irradiation and then observation. However, most patients will relapse. Durvalumab (antiprogrammed cell death ligand-1) has enhanced the efficacy outcomes after cCRT for patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. Recently, durvalumab combined with platinum-etoposide demonstrated a significant survival benefit compared with platinum-etoposide as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC and has also shown antitumor activity as monotherapy and combined with tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4) in pretreated patients with extensive-stage SCLC. ADRIATIC, a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, global study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03703297), is designed to investigate the efficacy of durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, as consolidation therapy for patients with LS-SCLC without disease progression after cCRT. Approximately 600 patients with documented histologic or cytologic LS-SCLC, World Health Organization/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and no progression after 4 cycles of cCRT will be randomized (1:1:1) to treatment (durvalumab 1500 mg plus placebo every 4 weeks [q4w] for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab 1500 mg q4w; durvalumab 1500 mg plus tremelimumab 75 mg q4w for 4 cycles, followed by durvalumab 1500 mg q4w; or dual placebo q4w for 4 cycles, followed by single placebo q4w) within 1 to 42 days of completing cCRT, stratified by stage and receipt of prophylactic brain irradiation. The primary endpoints are progression-free survival and overall survival. The secondary endpoints are overall survival and progression-free survival rates, objective response rate, and safety and tolerability. Recruitment began in September 2018.

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide; or platinum-etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum-etoposide consisted of etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum-etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus the platinum-etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 269 to the platinum-etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59-0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5-14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3-11·2) in the platinum-etoposide group, with 34% (26·9-41·0) versus 25% (18·4-31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum-etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Gefitinib exposure and occurrence of interstitial lung disease in Japanese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: A prospective, multicenter, large-scale cohort with a nested case-control study (NCT00252759) was conducted to identify and quantify risk factors for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in Japanese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who received gefitinib. This study reports the association between gefitinib exposure and the occurrence of ILD. METHODS: A total of 1891 gefitinib plasma concentrations from 336 patients were measured after first dose, at steady state, and at time of ILD occurrence. Influences of demographic and pathophysiological factors on pharmacokinetics were investigated by non-linear mixed-effect modeling. The exposure to gefitinib was compared between patients without and with ILD occurrence to explore risks associated with gefitinib-induced ILD. Intra-patient comparison of exposure was also conducted between times at ILD development and normal states. RESULTS: In the population pharmacokinetic analysis for gefitinib, α1-acid glycoprotein (AGP), age, body weight, and concomitant use of cytochrome P450 3A4 inducers were significant covariates on oral clearance (CL/F). AGP and body weight were also identified as factors affecting the volume of distribution. CL/F was significantly lower at the time of ILD occurrence than normal states. Patients who developed ILD tended to show higher exposure to gefitinib than those without ILD; however, these differences were not statistically significant. On the other hand, exposure at the time of ILD occurrence was significantly elevated compared to the time of normal state within the same patients. CONCLUSIONS: Significant elevation of exposure of gefitinib was observed at the time of ILD occurrence, suggesting reduction of CL/F could be associated with ILD-induced AGP elevation. Increase in exposure of gefitinib is unlikely to be a robust predictor of ILD and does not warrant any dose modifications.

Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. RESULTS: Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).

PD-L1 expression and its relationship with oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

In order to explore the potential patient population who could benefit from anti PD-1/PD-L1 mono or combination therapies, this study aimed to profile a panel of immunotherapy related biomarkers (PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4 and CD8) and targeted therapy biomarkers (EGFR, KRAS, ALK, ROS1 and MET) in NSCLC.Tumor samples from 297 NSCLC patients, including 156 adenocarcinomas (AD) and 129 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC), were analyzed using immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization.43.1% of NSCLC patients had PD-L1 positive staining on ≥ 5% tumor cells (TC). Furthermore, dual color immunofluorescence revealed that the majority of PD-L1/CD8 dual positive tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) had infiltrated into the tumor core. Finally, combined analysis of all eight biomarkers showed that tumor PD-L1 positivity overlapped with known alterations in NSCLC oncogenic tumor drivers in 26% of SCC and 76% of AD samples.Our illustration of the eight biomarkers' overlap provides an intuitive overview of NSCLC for personalized therapeutic strategies using anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune therapies, either as single agents, or in combination with targeted therapies. For the first time, we also report that PD-L1 and CD8 dual positive TILs are predominantly located within the tumor core.

Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): a phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimum management strategies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are undefined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of continuing gefitinib combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-line gefitinib. METHODS: The randomised, phase 3, multicentre IMPRESS study was done in 71 centres in 11 countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, chemotherapy-naive, stage IIIB-IV EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with previous disease control with first-line gefitinib and recent disease progression (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central block randomisation to oral gefitinib 250 mg or placebo once daily in tablet form; randomisation did not include stratification factors. All patients also received the platinum-based doublet chemotherapy cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on the first day of each cycle. After completion of a maximum of six chemotherapy cycles, patients continued their randomly assigned treatment until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. All study investigators and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study has completed enrolment, but patients are still in follow-up for overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01544179. FINDINGS: Between March 29, 2012, and Dec 20, 2013, 265 patients were randomly assigned: 133 to the gefitinib group and 132 to the placebo group. At the time of data cutoff (May 5, 2014), 98 (74%) patients had disease progression in the gefitinib group compared with 107 (81%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·13; p=0·27; median progression-free survival 5·4 months in both groups [95% CI 4·5-5·7 in the gefitinib group and 4·6-5·5 in the placebo group]). The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (85 [64%] of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 81 [61%] of 132 patients in the placebo group) and decreased appetite (65 [49%] and 45 [34%]). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were anaemia (11 [8%] of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and five [4%] of 132 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (nine [7%] and seven [5%]). 37 (28%) of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 28 (21%) of 132 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Continuation of gefitinib after radiological disease progression on first-line gefitinib did not prolong progression-free survival in patients who received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as subsequent line of treatment. Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy remains the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study in Asia of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: evaluation of patients recruited from mainland China.

AIM: In the IRESSA Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), 1217 patients in East Asia with pulmonary adenocarcinoma who were never-smokers or ex/light-smokers received first-line gefitinib (250 mg/day) or carboplatin/paclitaxel (area under the curve 5/6; 200 mg/m(2) ). Efficacy analyses were pre-planned in patients in China. METHODS: In China, 372 patients (30.6% of the overall group) were randomized. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptom improvement, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: For patients in China, PFS did not significantly differ from the overall IPASS population (interaction test P= 0.427). PFS was numerically longer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.62-1.01; P= 0.065; median PFS 6.8 months for both treatments) and ORR significantly higher (ORR 44.6 vs 29.8%; odds ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.22-2.89; P= 0.004) for gefitinib than carboplatin/paclitaxel. OS (mature data) was similar for both treatments (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73-1.17; P= 0.511; median OS gefitinib 18.1 months vs 18.3 months carboplatin/paclitaxel). HRQoL improvement rates favored gefitinib; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Gefitinib had a more favorable tolerability profile than carboplatin/paclitaxel. Efficacy by epidermal growth factor receptor biomarker status (exploratory analyses) was difficult to interpret due to low patient numbers with known biomarker status. CONCLUSION: For the Chinese subgroup of IPASS, gefitinib demonstrated improved PFS and ORR, similar OS, higher HRQoL, similar symptom improvement rates and a more favorable tolerability profile than carboplatin/paclitaxel, generally consistent with the overall IPASS population.

Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in circulating free DNA in serum: from IPASS, a phase III study of gefitinib or carboplatin/paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In IPASS (IRESSA Pan-Asia Study), clinically selected patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma received first-line gefitinib or carboplatin/paclitaxel. This preplanned, exploratory analysis was conducted to increase understanding of the use of surrogate samples, such as serum, versus tumor biopsy samples for determining EGFR mutation status in the Japanese cohort (n = 233). METHODS: EGFR mutations were assessed using tumor tissue-derived DNA (n = 91) and circulating free (cf) DNA from pretreatment serum samples (n = 194). RESULTS: Fewer patients were EGFR mutation positive when assessed using pretreatment cfDNA (23.7%) versus tumor tissue-derived DNA (61.5%). cfDNA results identified no false positives but a high rate of false negatives (56.9%). There was a significant interaction between cfDNA EGFR mutation status and treatment for progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.045). PFS was significantly longer and objective response rate (ORR) higher with gefitinib than carboplatin/paclitaxel in the cfDNA EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.60; p < 0.001; ORR: odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 0.48-6.09; 75.0% versus 63.6%; p = 0.40). There was a slight numerical advantage in PFS and ORR for gefitinib over carboplatin/paclitaxel in the cfDNA EGFR mutation-negative subgroup, likely due to the high rate of false negatives within this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: These results merit further investigation to determine whether alternative sources of tumor DNA, such as cfDNA in serum, could be used for determining EGFR mutation status in future; currently, where a sample is available, analysis of tumor material is recommended.

Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS).

PURPOSE: The results of the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), which compared gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel in previously untreated never-smokers and light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma were published previously. This report presents overall survival (OS) and efficacy according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) biomarker status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 1,217 patients were randomly assigned. Biomarkers analyzed were EGFR mutation (amplification mutation refractory system; 437 patients evaluable), EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization; 406 patients evaluable), and EGFR protein expression (immunohistochemistry; 365 patients evaluable). OS analysis was performed at 78% maturity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess biomarker status by randomly assigned treatment interactions for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: OS (954 deaths) was similar for gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel with no significant difference between treatments overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02; P = .109) or in EGFR mutation-positive (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33; P = .990) or EGFR mutation-negative (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63; P = .309; treatment by EGFR mutation interaction P = .480) subgroups. A high proportion (64.3%) of EGFR mutation-positive patients randomly assigned to carboplatin/paclitaxel received subsequent EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PFS was significantly longer with gefitinib for patients whose tumors had both high EGFR gene copy number and EGFR mutation (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.67) but significantly shorter when high EGFR gene copy number was not accompanied by EGFR mutation (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.09 to 7.09). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutations are the strongest predictive biomarker for PFS and tumor response to first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The predictive value of EGFR gene copy number was driven by coexisting EGFR mutation (post hoc analysis). Treatment-related differences observed for PFS in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup were not apparent for OS. OS results were likely confounded by the high proportion of patients crossing over to the alternative treatment.

Disease control as a predictor of survival with gefitinib and docetaxel in a phase III study (V-15-32) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis investigated the relationship between tumor response and overall survival (OS) in pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We conducted landmark survival analyses of V-15-32, a phase III study comparing gefitinib with docetaxel in pretreated advanced NSCLC. Best response at weeks 8, 12, 16, and 20, and visit response at week 4, were evaluated. RESULTS: Disease control (DC; complete response [CR], partial response [PR], or stable disease) was a better predictor of OS than CR/PR at all time points. The strongest predictor of OS for both gefitinib and docetaxel was DC at week 8 (hazard ratio [HR] DC versus non-DC: 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.45, p < 0.001 for both treatments). DC at week 4 was also associated with longer survival compared with non-DC for both treatments (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.49, p < 0.001 for gefitinib; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.47, p < 0.001 for docetaxel). DISCUSSION: DC is a better predictor of OS with gefitinib and docetaxel than CR/PR in advanced pretreated NSCLC, with a best response of DC at week 8 the strongest predictor.

Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)

Overview of gefitinib in non-small cell lung cancer: an Asian perspective.

Clinical experience with the EGFR-TKI gefitinib in Asian patients with NSCLC will be reviewed, both in patients who have previously failed chemotherapy and in the first-line setting (gefitinib is currently not licensed for first-line treatment). Tolerability and specific adverse events in patients of Asian origin will be discussed. Differing objective response rates between patients of Asian and non-Asian origin when treated with gefitinib (and standard cytotoxics) will also be discussed along with EGFR mutations and drug resistance. Reports of Phase II/III clinical experience with gefitinib 250 mg/day in Asia were identified by searching in Medline and ASCO databases for publications between 1993 and 2008. Defined search criteria included (gefitinib OR Iressa OR ZD1839) AND NSCLC AND (Asia OR Japan OR China OR Taiwan OR Korea) or 'Clinical trial' type, with additional searches, including AND 'interstitial lung disease (ILD)' or 'EGFR mutation'. Numerous Phase II/III trials including patients of Asian origin with previously treated advanced NSCLC report a consistent clinical benefit of gefitinib. Gefitinib is generally well tolerated by patients with NSCLC although the incidence of ILD in Japanese patients must be noted. Studies analyzing EGFR mutations indicate that these mutations occur at a much higher rate in patients of Asian origin than in non-Asian patients. Data from several studies indicate that EGFR mutation-positive patients of Asian origin have better efficacy outcomes with first-line gefitinib when compared with those who are EGFR mutation-negative. Research is ongoing to evaluate the role of tailoring patients' treatment according to their genetic phenotype.