Safety and efficacy of first-line dacomitinib in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Results from a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial (ARCHER 1050).

OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy and safety of dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC in Asian patients enrolled in the ongoing ARCHER 1050 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this ongoing, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial (NCT01774721), eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day. Randomization, by a central computer system, was stratified by race and EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion mutation/exon 21 L858R substitution mutation). The primary endpoint was PFS by blinded independent review. RESULTS: Of 346 Asian patients, 170 were randomized to dacomitinib and 176 to gefitinib. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS with dacomitinib versus gefitinib was 0.509 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.391-0.662; 1-sided p < 0.0001; median 16.5 months [95 % CI: 12.9-18.4] vs. 9.3 months [95 % CI: 9.2-11.0]). HR for OS with dacomitinib versus gefitinib was 0.759 (95 % CI: 0.578-0.996; median 37.7 months [95 % CI: 30.2-44.7] vs. 29.1 months [95 % CI: 25.6-36.0]). The OS benefit was still maintained in those patients who had a stepwise dose reduction of dacomitinib (to 30 and 15 mg/day). The most common adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (154 [90.6 %] patients), paronychia (110 [64.7 %]), dermatitis acneiform (96 [56.5 %]), and stomatitis (87 [51.2 %]) with dacomitinib, and diarrhea (100 [56.8 %]), alanine aminotransferase increased (81 [46.0 %]), and aspartate aminotransferase increased (75 [42.6 %]) with gefitinib. Treatment-related serious AEs were reported in 16 (9.4 %) and 8 (4.5 %) patients treated with dacomitinib and gefitinib, respectively. CONCLUSION: First-line dacomitinib was associated with significant prolongation of PFS and improved OS compared with gefitinib in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The AE profiles of dacomitinib and gefitinib in Asian patients were consistent with the overall ARCHER 1050 population.

The patient's perspective on treatment with dacomitinib: patient-reported outcomes from the Phase III trial ARCHER 1050.

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib.

Effects of dose modifications on the safety and efficacy of dacomitinib for EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: We evaluated reasons for dacomitinib dose reduction (DR) and examined adverse event (AE) incidence, key efficacy end points (progression-free survival [PFS]/overall survival [OS]), and pharmacokinetics in dose-reducing patients in the ARCHER 1050 trial. Patients & methods: Newly diagnosed patients with EGFR mutation-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer received oral dacomitinib (45 mg once-daily [QD]), with stepwise toxicity-managing DR (30 and 15 mg QD) permitted. Results: Skin toxicities (62.7%) were the most common DR-leading AEs. The AE incidence and severity decreased following DRs. Initial plasma dacomitinib exposure (45 mg QD) was generally lower in patients remaining at 45 mg QD compared with dose-reducing patients. Median PFS and OS were similar in all dacomitinib-treated patients and dose-reducing patients. Conclusion: Tolerability-guided dose modifications enabled patients to continue with dacomitinib and benefit from PFS/OS improvement. Trial registration number: NCT01774721.

Improvement in Overall Survival in a Randomized Study That Compared Dacomitinib With Gefitinib in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and EGFR-Activating Mutations.

Purpose ARCHER 1050, a randomized, open-label, phase III study of dacomitinib versus gefitinib in treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and activating mutations in EGFR, reported significant improvement in progression-free survival with dacomitinib. The mature overall survival (OS) analysis for the intention-to-treat population is presented here. Patients and Methods In this multinational, multicenter study, patients age 18 years or older (≥ 20 years in Japan and Korea) who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and newly diagnosed NSCLC with activating mutations in EGFR (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to dacomitinib (n = 227) or gefitinib (n = 225). Random assignment was stratified by race (Japanese, Chinese, other East Asian, or non-Asian) and EGFR mutation type. The final OS analysis was conducted with a data cutoff date of February 17, 2017; at that time 220 deaths (48.7%) were observed. Results During a median follow-up time of 31.3 months, 103 (45.4%) and 117 (52.0%) deaths occurred in the dacomitinib and gefitinib arms, respectively. The estimated hazard ratio for OS was 0.760 (95% CI, 0.582 to 0.993; two-sided P = .044). The median OS was 34.1 months with dacomitinib versus 26.8 months with gefitinib. The OS probabilities at 30 months were 56.2% and 46.3% with dacomitinib and gefitinib, respectively. Preliminary subgroup analyses for OS that are based on baseline characteristics were consistent with the primary OS analysis. Conclusion In patients with advanced NSCLC and EGFR activating mutations, dacomitinib is the first second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to show significant improvement in OS in a phase III randomized study compared with a standard-of-care TKI. Dacomitinib should be considered one of the standard treatment options for these patients.

Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is a second-generation, irreversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We compared its efficacy and safety with that of the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (ARCHER 1050), we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years or ≥20 years in Japan and South Korea) with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC and one EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) at 71 academic medical centres and university hospitals in seven countries or special administrative regions. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. Randomisation, stratified by race and EGFR mutation type, was done with a computer-generated random code assigned by a central interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by masked independent review 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 with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774721, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2013, and March 20, 2015, 452 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dacomitinib (n=227) or gefitinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 22·1 months (95% CI 20·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival according to masked independent review was 14·7 months (95% CI 11·1-16·6) in the dacomitinib group and 9·2 months (9·1-11·0) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·47-0·74; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dermatitis acneiform (31 [14%] of 227 patients given dacomitinib vs none of 224 patients given gefitinib), diarrhoea (19 [8%] vs two [1%]), and raised alanine aminotransferase levels (two [1%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 21 (9%) patients given dacomitinib and in ten (4%) patients given gefitinib. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the dacomitinib group (one related to untreated diarrhoea and one to untreated cholelithases/liver disease) and one in the gefitinib group (related to sigmoid colon diverticulitis/rupture complicated by pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Dacomitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over gefitinib in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC and should be considered as a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING: SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group and Pfizer.

A single-arm, open-label, expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: This open-label, multicenter study was designed to allow access to vemurafenib for patients with metastatic melanoma, bridging the time between end of enrollment in the phase III registration trial (December 2010) and commercial availability following US Food and Drug Administration approval of vemurafenib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma (August 2011). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF mutation (detected by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test). Unlike previous vemurafenib trials, patients with poor performance status (PS) and treated brain metastases were permitted. Enrolled patients received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. RESULTS: Of 374 patients enrolled at 29 US sites (December 2010 to October 2011), 371 patients received vemurafenib and were followed up for a median of 2.8 months (the study had a prespecified end upon vemurafenib approval and commercial availability). At baseline, most patients (75%) had stage M1c disease, and 19% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2 or 3; 72% of patients had received prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma, 27% received prior ipilimumab, and 29% radiotherapy for prior brain metastases. Because reassessment data to confirm response were not available for most patients, point estimates of objective response rate (ORR) are reported. Among 241 efficacy-evaluable patients, the ORR was 54% (median time to response, 1.9 months). The ORR in non-central nervous system sites in patients with previously treated brain metastases (n = 68) was 53%. The ORR in prior ipilimumab-treated patients (n = 68) was 52%. For patients with PS of 0 or 1 (n = 210) and 2 or 3 (n = 31), the ORRs were 55%, and 42%, respectively. The safety profile observed was consistent with that reported in previous studies. The number of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was higher in patients with PS 2 or 3 than in those with PS 0 or 1 (10% vs. 5%, respectively). Adverse events requiring a dose reduction (at least 1 level) occurred in 11% of patients, and 9 patients (2%) experienced events leading to vemurafenib withdrawal, including 2 with repeated QT interval prolongation. DISCUSSION: This study confirmed the established rapid and high tumor response rate achievable with vemurafenib in BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. Several groups not included in previous studies, including patients with previously treated brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 2 to 3, or previous ipilimumab treatment had benefitted from vemurafenib similar to the overall population. No new safety signals were detected.

The burden of metastatic melanoma: treatment patterns, healthcare use (utilization), and costs.

Using a large national claims database, this study investigates the differences in survival and healthcare costs of metastatic melanoma patients by the number of metastatic sites. An analysis was carried out using data obtained from January 2007 to March 2010. Patients included had at least two claims for metastatic disease at least 30 days apart, at least two claims for melanoma at least 30 days apart, or at least one claim for cancer-related treatment with a diagnosis of melanoma and evidence of anticancer systemic therapy. The index date was the first metastatic diagnosis date. Patients were characterized as having evidence of lymph node (LN) involvement only, 1-3 distant metastatic sites, or 4+ distant metastatic sites. Average per-patient per-month (PPPM) costs and mortality were examined. There were 431 metastatic melanoma patients: most were male (65%) with mean baseline Charlson's comorbidity index of 3.52. The mean (SD) total unadjusted costs PPPM in the follow-up period were lower for patients with metastases to LN only ($6773 [$5521]) than for those who had 1-3 ($10 999 [$11 319]) or 4+ ($15 762 [$12 377]) distant metastases (P<0.001). When compared with patients with LN metastases only, patients having 1-3 [cost ratio (CR): 1.739, P<0.001] or 4+ (CR: 2.375, P<0.001) distant metastatic sites had higher all-cause healthcare costs. Among the entire study cohort, 42% died with a median survival time of 270 days. Mortality varied by cohort: 3% in LN only; 37% in 1-3 non-LN, and 64% in >3 non-LN (P<0.001). In conclusion, patients with metastatic melanoma with a greater number of metastatic sites have increased healthcare costs and significantly worse survival times.

Humoral response to catumaxomab correlates with clinical outcome: results of the pivotal phase II/III study in patients with malignant ascites.

The trifunctional antibody catumaxomab is a targeted immunotherapy for the intraperitoneal treatment of malignant ascites. In a Phase II/III trial in cancer patients (n = 258) with malignant ascites, catumaxomab showed a clear clinical benefit vs. paracentesis and had an acceptable safety profile. Human antimouse antibodies (HAMAs), which could be associated with beneficial humoral effects and prolonged survival, may develop against catumaxomab as it is a mouse/rat antibody. This post hoc analysis investigated whether there was a correlation between the detection of HAMAs 8 days after the fourth catumaxomab infusion and clinical outcome. HAMA-positive and HAMA-negative patients in the catumaxomab group and patients in the control group were analyzed separately for all three clinical outcome measures (puncture-free survival, time to next puncture and overall survival) and compared to each other. There was a strong correlation between humoral response and clinical outcome: patients who developed HAMAs after catumaxomab showed significant improvement in all three clinical outcome measures vs. HAMA-negative patients. In the overall population in HAMA-positive vs. HAMA-negative patients, median puncture-free survival was 64 vs. 27 days (p < 0.0001; HR 0.330), median time to next therapeutic puncture was 104 vs. 46 days (p = 0.0002; HR 0.307) and median overall survival was 129 vs. 64 days (p = 0.0003; HR 0.433). Similar differences between HAMA-positive and HAMA-negative patients were seen in the ovarian, nonovarian and gastric cancer subgroups. In conclusion, HAMA development may be a biomarker for catumaxomab response and patients who developed HAMAs sooner derived greater benefit from catumaxomab treatment.

Catumaxomab: clinical development and future directions.

Catumaxomab, a monoclonal bispecific trifunctional antibody, was approved in the European Union in April 2009 for the intraperitoneal treatment of patients with malignant ascites. The marketing authorization holder Fresenius Biotech GmbH developed catumaxomab (Removab(®)) together with its partner TRION Pharma GmbH, Germany. It is the first substance worldwide with a regulatory label for the treatment of malignant ascites due to epithelial carcinomas. Since the peritoneum is of mesothelial origin and therefore lacks EpCAM expression, the intraperitoneal administration of catumaxomab is an attractive targeted immunotherapeutic approach. Catumaxomab is able to destroy EpCAM positive tumor cells in the peritoneal cavity known as the main cause of malignant ascites. In addition, catumaxomab is a potential therapeutic option for several primary tumors since the EpCAM molecule is expressed on the majority of epithelial carcinomas. This review focuses on the clinical development of catumaxomab and indicates future directions.

Management of imatinib-resistant CML patients.

Imatinib has had marked impact on outcomes in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients for all stages of the disease and is endorsed by international treatment guidelines as the first line option. Although imatinib is highly effective and well tolerated, the development of resistance represents a clinical challenge. Since the most frequently identified mechanism of acquired imatinib resistance is bcr-abl kinase domain point mutations, periodic hematologic, cytogenetic, and molecular monitoring is critical throughout imatinib therapy. Once cytogenetic remission is achieved, residual disease can be monitored by bcr-abl transcript levels as assayed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Detection of bcr-abl mutants prior to and during imatinib therapy can aid in risk stratification as well as in determining therapeutic strategies. Thus, mutation screening is indicated in patients lacking or losing hematologic response. Moreover, search for mutations should also be performed when a 3-log reduction of bcr-abl transcripts is not achieved or there is a reproducible increase of transcript levels. In patients harboring mutations which confer imatinib resistance, novel second line tyrosine kinase inhibitors have demonstrated encouraging efficacy with low toxicity. Only the T315I bcr-abl mutant has proved totally resistant to all clinically available bcr-abl inhibitors. Strategies to further increase the rates of complete molecular remissions represent the next frontier in the targeted therapy of CML patients.