Combined use of CYFRA 21-1 and CA 125 predicts survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC and stable disease in IMpower150.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease (SD) have an unmet clinical need to help guide early treatment adjustments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential of tumor biomarkers to inform on survival outcomes in NSCLC SD patients. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included 480 patients from the IMpower150 study with metastatic NSCLC, treated with chemotherapy, atezolizumab and bevacizumab combinations, who had SD at first CT scan (post-treatment initiation). Patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS] outcomes) based on serum tumor biomarker levels. RESULTS: The CYFRA 21-1 and CA 125 biomarker combination predicted OS and PFS in patients with SD. Risk of death was ~4-fold higher for the biomarker-stratified high-risk versus low-risk SD patients (hazard ratio [HR] 3.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.02-4.78; p < 0.0001). OS in patients with the low- and high-risk SD was comparable to that in patients with the CT-defined partial response (PR; HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.898-1.34) and progressive disease (PD) (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.621-1.77), respectively. The findings were similar with PFS, and consistent across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker testing shows potential for providing prognostic information to help direct treatment in NSCLC patients with SD. Prospective clinical studies are warranted.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02366143.

A lack of association between BMI and chemoimmunotherapy efficacy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Secondary analysis of the IMpower150 and IMpower130 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have indicated that patients with high body mass index (BMI) may have favourable survival outcomes following treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). However, this evidence is limited by several factors, notably the minimal evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the use of categorised BMI with inconsistent cut point definitions, and minimal investigation of contemporary combination ICI therapy. Moreover, whether overweight and obese patients gain a larger benefit from contemporary frontline chemoimmunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. METHODS: This secondary analysis pooled individual patient data from the intention-to-treat population of the IMpower130 and IMpower150 RCTs comparing chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The potentially non-linear relationship between BMI and chemoimmunotherapy treatment effect was evaluated using Multivariable Fractional Polynomial Interaction (MFPI). As a sensitivity analysis, chemoimmunotherapy treatment effect (chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy) on survival was also estimated for each BMI subgroup defined by World Health Organisation classification. Exploratory analyses in the respective chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy cohort were undertaken to examine the survival outcomes among BMI subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 1282 patients were included. From the MFPI analysis, BMI was not significantly associated with chemoimmunotherapy treatment effect with respect to either OS (p = 0.71) or PFS (p = 0.35). This was supported by the sensitivity analyses that demonstrated no significant treatment effect improvement in OS/PFS among overweight or obese patients compared to normal weight patients (OS: normal BMI HR = 0.74 95% CI 0.59-0.93, overweight HR = 0.78 95% CI 0.61-1.01, obese HR = 0.84 95% CI 0.59-1.20). Exploratory analyses further highlighted that survival outcomes were not significantly different across BMI subgroups in either the chemoimmunotherapy therapy cohort (Median OS: normal BMI 19.9 months, overweight 17.9 months, and obese 19.5 months, p = 0.7) or the chemotherapy cohort (Median OS: normal 14.1 months, overweight 15.9 months, and obese 16.7 months, p = 0.7). CONCLUSION: There was no association between high BMI (overweight or obese individuals) and enhanced chemoimmunotherapy treatment benefit in front-line treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. This contrasts with previous publications that showed a superior treatment benefit in overweight and obese patients treated with immunotherapy given without chemotherapy.

Low Risk of Hyperprogression with First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Pooled Analysis of 7 Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Monotherapy immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) used in second- or later-line settings has been reported to induce hyperprogression. This study evaluated hyperprogression risk with ICI (atezolizumab) in the first-, second-, or later-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and provides insights into hyperprogression risk with contemporary first-line ICI treatment. METHODS: Hyperprogression was identified using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST)-based criteria in a dataset of pooled individual-participant level data from BIRCH, FIR, IMpower130, IMpower131, IMpower150, OAK, and POPLAR trials. Odds ratios were computed to compare hyperprogression risks between groups. Landmark Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between hyperprogression and progression-free survival/overall survival. Secondarily, putative risk factors for hyperprogression among second- or later-line atezolizumab-treated patients were evaluated using univariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the included 4644 patients, 119 of the atezolizumab-treated patients (n = 3129) experienced hyperprogression. Hyperprogression risk was markedly lower with first-line atezolizumab-either chemoimmunotherapy or monotherapy-compared to second/later-line atezolizumab monotherapy (0.7% vs. 8.8%, OR = 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.13). Further, there was no statistically significant difference in hyperprogression risk with first-line atezolizumab-chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (0.6% vs. 1.0%, OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.22-1.36). Sensitivity analyses using an extended RECIST-based criteria including early death supported these findings. Hyperprogression was associated with worsened overall survival (HR = 3.4, 95% CI, 2.7-4.2, P < .001); elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was the strongest risk factor for hyperprogression (C-statistic = 0.62, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents first evidence for a markedly lower hyperprogression risk in advanced NSCLC patients treated with first-line ICI, particularly with chemoimmunotherapy, as compared to second- or later-line ICI treatment.

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The cancer-cell-killing property of atezolizumab may be enhanced by the blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor-mediated immunosuppression with bevacizumab. This open-label, phase 3 study evaluated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received chemotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP), bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP), or atezolizumab plus BCP (ABCP) every 3 weeks for four or six cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab, bevacizumab, or both. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival both among patients in the intention-to-treat population who had a wild-type genotype (WT population; patients with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were excluded) and among patients in the WT population who had high expression of an effector T-cell (Teff) gene signature in the tumor (Teff-high WT population) and overall survival in the WT population. The ABCP group was compared with the BCP group before the ACP group was compared with the BCP group. RESULTS: In the WT population, 356 patients were assigned to the ABCP group, and 336 to the BCP group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (8.3 months vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.74; P<0.001); the corresponding values in the Teff-high WT population were 11.3 months and 6.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68]; P<0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group in the entire intention-to-treat population (including those with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations) and among patients with low or negative programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, those with low Teff gene-signature expression, and those with liver metastases. Median overall survival among the patients in the WT population was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (19.2 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of ABCP was consistent with previously reported safety risks of the individual medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression and EGFR or ALK genetic alteration status. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; IMpower150 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02366143 .).

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Progression-Free Survival Associated with Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapies for ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about real-world treatment and outcomes of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of the Flatiron Health EHR-derived deidentified database included patients with a lung cancer diagnosis and confirmed advanced NSCLC who received ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy (January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2018). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were characterized. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and time to discontinuation were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: First-line ALK TKI therapy was administered to 581 patients (27.5% had brain metastasis on or prior to initiation) and second-line ALK TKI therapy to 254 patients post crizotinib (45.7% had brain metastasis on or prior to second-line ALK TKI initiation). Crizotinib (84.6%; n = 492) was the most commonly administered first-line ALK TKI therapy. For second-line ALK TKI post crizotinib (n = 254), 49.6% received ceritinib, 41.7% received alectinib, 5.9% received crizotinib retreatment, and 2.8% received brigatinib. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) rwPFS was 7.47 (6.48-8.32) months for first-line and 7.30 (5.72-8.42) months for second-line ALK TKI. Median (95% CI) rwPFS was significantly longer among first-line ALK TKI patients without than with brain metastasis (8.52 [7.57-10.59] vs. 4.97 [3.75-5.99] months; p < .0001) and patients with brain metastasis on or prior to first-line ALK TKI therapy had a significantly increased risk of progression (hazard ratio ± SE, 1.976 ± 0.112; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Median rwPFS in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC was < 8 months for first- and second-line ALK TKI therapy and was even shorter in patients with brain metastasis, highlighting the need for more effective treatments in this patient population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Results presented herein describe real-world treatment of advanced ALK+ NSCLC with ALK TKI therapies from January 2011 through June 2018. Crizotinib was the most commonly prescribed first-line ALK TKI therapy in this patient population, but the majority of data analyzed were obtained prior to Food and Drug Administration approval of alectinib and ceritinib in the first-line ALK TKI setting. Physicians should monitor patients closely to help identify when a change in treatment should occur.

First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open-label phase 3 trial, we compared first-line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive NSCLC. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor-expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. RESULTS: Among the 423 patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more, the median progression-free survival was 4.2 months with nivolumab versus 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.45; P=0.25), and the median overall survival was 14.4 months versus 13.2 months (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30). A total of 128 of 212 patients (60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy. Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 71% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 92% of those who received chemotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 18% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 51% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. Overall survival was similar between groups. Nivolumab had a favorable safety profile, as compared with chemotherapy, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 026 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02041533 .).

Association between depth of response and survival in patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A partial response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors includes a wide range of changes in tumor size. This study evaluated whether further specification of tumor reduction based on the depth of response (DpR) would provide a more precise association with outcomes for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for the randomized phase 3 CA031 trial in patients with NSCLC treated with carboplatin in combination with nab-paclitaxel or solvent-based paclitaxel. Quartiles according to the maximum tumor reduction from the baseline were defined (quartile 1 [Q1], >0% to 25%; quartile 2 [Q2], >25% to 50%; quartile 3 [Q3], >50% to 75%; and quartile 4 [Q4], >75%) and were compared with those patients with no tumor reduction (NTR). The primary objective was to evaluate the association between DpR and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 1052 patients enrolled in the CA031 trial, 959 (91%) were evaluable, and they included 365 (38.1%) who were classified as Q1, 327 (34.1%) who were classified as Q2, 131 (13.7%) who were classified as Q3, and 34 (3.5%) who were classified as Q4; 102 had NTR (10.6%). The median OS values for patients in the NTR, Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 groups were 4.8, 10.4, 14.5, 19.3, and 23.5 months, respectively. The maximum DpR on treatment was an independent predictor of improved OS in comparison with patients with NTR; the hazard ratio decreased from 0.43 in Q1 to 0.16 in Q4. CONCLUSIONS: DpR was strongly associated with OS in patients with NSCLC receiving first-line platinum-based therapy. Additional studies may help to define the role of DpR in solid tumors.

Phase 1/2 study of rilotumumab (AMG 102), a hepatocyte growth factor inhibitor, and erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the mesenchymal-epidermal transition factor (MET) tyrosine kinase and its ligand, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), is implicated in resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. In this phase 1/2 trial, rilotumumab (an anti-HGF antibody) combined with erlotinib was evaluated in patients with metastatic, previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: In phase 1, a dose de-escalation design was adopted with rilotumumab starting at 15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks and oral erlotinib 150 mg daily. In phase 2, the disease control rate (DCR) (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) of the combination was evaluated using a Simon 2-stage design. The biomarkers examined included 10 plasma-circulating molecules associated with the EGFR and MET pathways. RESULTS: Without indications for de-escalation, the recommended phase 2 dose was dose level 0. Overall, 45 response-evaluable patients were enrolled (13 with squamous carcinoma, 32 with adenocarcinoma; 2 had confirmed EGFR mutations, 33 had confirmed wild-type [WT] EGFR, and 7 had KRAS mutations). The DCR for all patients was 60% (90% confidence interval [CI], 47.1%-71.3%). Median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (90% CI, 1.4-2.7 months), and median overall survival was 6.6 months (90% CI, 5.6-8.9 months). Among patients with WT EGFR, the DCR was 60.6% (90% CI, 46.3%-73.3%), median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (90% CI, 1.4-2.7 months), and median overall survival was 7.0 months (90% CI, 5.6-13.4 months). Elevated baseline levels of neuregulin 1 were associated with longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.87), whereas elevated amphiregulin levels were associated with more rapid progression (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.48-3.08). CONCLUSIONS: Combined rilotumumab and erlotinib had an acceptable safety profile, and the DCR met the prespecified criteria for success. In the EGFR WT group, the DCR exceeded published reports for erlotinib alone. High circulating levels of neuregulin 1 may indicate sensitivity to this combination. Cancer 2017;123:2936-44. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Understanding Mechanisms of Resistance in the Epithelial Growth Factor Receptor in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and the Role of Biopsy at Progression.

Molecular profiling and the discovery of drugs that target specific activating mutations have allowed the personalization of treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) is frequently over-expressed and/or aberrantly activated in different cancers, including NSCLC. The most common activating mutations of EGFR in NSCLC fall within the tyrosine kinase-binding domain. Three oral EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for first-line use in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (exon 19 deletions or exon 21 [L858R] substitution mutations), as detected by an FDA-approved test. However, disease progression is common and is often the result of secondary mutations, of which the EGFR T790M mutation is the most prevalent. Few options were available upon progression until the introduction of osimertinib, a kinase inhibitor that targets the T790M mutation, which was recently approved for use in patients with metastatic EGFR T790M mutation-positive NSCLC, as detected by an FDA-approved test, who progressed on or after EGFR TKI therapy. With the introduction of osimertinib, outcomes can now be improved in select patients. Therefore, performing a biopsy at progression to determine the underlying molecular cause of the acquired resistance is important for the enabling of individualized options that may provide the greatest opportunity for improved outcomes. This review discusses the latest updates in molecular testing at progression and outlines treatment options for this difficult-to-treat population. THE ONCOLOGIST: 2017;22:3-11 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)-gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib-have changed the treatment paradigm for non-small cell lung cancer among those with EGFR mutation positive disease, most patients experience progression after approximately 12 months of treatment. Until recently, options were limited for patients who progressed, but improvements in molecular profiling and the approval of osimertinib, which targets the resistance mutation T790M, afford the opportunity for improved outcomes in many patients with this mutation. This article explains the options available after progression on initial EGFR TKI therapy and the importance of molecular testing at progression in making treatment decisions.

Dabrafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Activating BRAF(V600E) (Val600Glu) mutations are found in about 1-2% of lung adenocarcinomas, which might provide an opportunity for targeted treatment in these patients. Dabrafenib is an oral selective inhibitor of BRAF kinase. We did a trial to assess the clinical activity of dabrafenib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) positive for the BRAF(V600E) mutation. METHODS: In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled previously treated and untreated patients with stage IV metastatic BRAF(V600E)-positive NSCLC. Patients received oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of dabrafenib; safety was also assessed in this population. The study is ongoing but not enrolling patients in this cohort. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336634. FINDINGS: Between Aug 3, 2011, and Feb 25, 2014, 84 patients were enrolled, six of whom had not previously received systemic treatment for NSCLC. 26 of the 78 previously treated patients achieved an investigator-assessed overall response (33% [95% CI 23-45]). Four of the six previously untreated patients had an objective response. One patient died from an intracranial haemorrhage that was judged by the investigator to be due to the study drug. Serious adverse events were reported in 35 (42%) of 84 patients. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma in ten (12%), asthenia in four (5%), and basal-cell carcinoma in four (5%). INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib showed clinical activity in BRAF(V600E)-positive NSCLC. Our findings suggest that dabrafenib could represent a treatment option for a population of patients with limited therapeutic options. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib--a highly selective, CNS-active, ALK inhibitor-showed promising clinical activity in crizotinib-naive and crizotinib-resistant patients with ALK-rearranged (ALK-positive) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of alectinib in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on previous crizotinib. METHODS: We did a phase 2 study at 27 centres in the USA and Canada. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with stage IIIB-IV, ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed after crizotinib. Patients were treated with oral alectinib 600 mg twice daily until progression, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the response-evaluable population (ie, patients with measurable disease at baseline who received at least one dose of study drug), and efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all enrolled patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01871805. The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2013, and Aug 4, 2014, 87 patients were enrolled into the study (intention-to-treat population). At the time of the primary analysis (median follow-up 4·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·1]), 33 of 69 patients with measurable disease at baseline had a confirmed partial response; thus, the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60). Adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2, most commonly constipation (31 [36%]), fatigue (29 [33%]), myalgia 21 [24%]), and peripheral oedema 20 [23%]). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine phosphokinase (seven [8%]), increased alanine aminotransferase (five [6%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (four [5%]). Two patients died: one had a haemorrhage (judged related to study treatment), and one had disease progression and a history of stroke (judged unrelated to treatment). INTERPRETATION: Alectinib showed clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had progressed on crizotinib. Therefore, alectinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with ALK-positive disease who have progressed on crizotinib. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Best Practices in Treatment Selection for Patients With Advanced NSCLC.

Worldwide, lung cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer, and its non-small-cell subtype constitutes up to 85% of cases. Overall, lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in the United States for both sexes, and its 5-year survival rate is 17%. It is a heterogeneous disease characterized by a variety of biomarkers and differing histologies. Non-small-cell lung cancer may be squamous or nonsquamous in nature and fueled by a number of oncodrivers. Obtaining sufficient tissue during biopsy to perform thorough biomarker testing is a challenge but essential for the modern, targeted therapeutic environment. Although platinum-based doublets still play a major role in first-line treatment, novel therapeutic agent targeting BRAF, EGFR, ALK, and ROS1, as well as agents targeting the T790M mutation, may offer options for patients whose disease fails to respond to initial therapy or relapses following an initial response. The emergence of immunotherapy as second-line standard therapy has changed the treatment paradigm. Some patients will have more favorable outcomes in the first-line setting with immunotherapy. However, managing lung cancer has become more complex than it was 15 years ago when the challenge of treatment was seen as being only binary, ie, small-cell vs non-small-cell disease.

HSP90 inhibitors in lung cancer: promise still unfulfilled.

Despite recent advances in the treatment of lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and worldwide, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 17%. Analysis of the molecular drivers of NSCLC led to the recognition that NSCLC is a collection of distinct, molecularly driven neoplasms. Several subsets of NSCLC with clinical relevance to targeted therapies are defined based on alterations in EGFR, ALK, and other key oncogenic drivers. However, for many oncogenic drivers-such as mutant KRAS-targeted therapies are lacking. Heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) is an adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-dependent molecular chaperone that is critically required for the stability of its clientele, many of which are driver oncoproteins. Therefore, HSP90 inhibitors could prove to be an effective and alternate approach to treat patients with NSCLC that has a specific molecular background or that has acquired resistance to other drugs. Over the last 2 decades, several HSP90 inhibitors have been developed that produced promising preclinical and clinical results. The quest is far from over, however. In this review, we discuss the development and the preclinical and clinical profiles of some of the HSP90 inhibitors that may help to improve the targeted treatment of NSCLC.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Clinicopathologic features and outcomes of patients with lung adenocarcinomas harboring BRAF mutations in the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The advent of effective targeted therapy for BRAF(V600E) -mutant lung adenocarcinomas necessitates further exploration of the unique clinical features and behavior of advanced-stage BRAF-mutant lung adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Data were reviewed for patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas enrolled in the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium whose tumors underwent testing for mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), AKT1, BRAF, dual-specificity mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEK1), neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS), and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit α (PIK3CA); for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations; and for MET amplification. RESULTS: Twenty-one BRAF mutations were identified in 951 patients with adenocarcinomas (2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4%-3.4%): 17 (81%; 95% CI, 60%-92%) were BRAF(V600E) mutations, and 4 were non-BRAF(V600E) mutations. Among the 733 cases tested for all 10 genes, BRAF mutations were more likely to occur than most other genotypic abnormalities in current or former smokers (BRAF vs sensitizing EGFR, 82% vs 36%, mid-P < .001; BRAF vs ALK, 39%, mid-P = .003; BRAF vs other mutations, 49%, mid-P = .02; BRAF vs patients with more than 1 oncogenic driver [doubleton], 46%, mid-P = .04.) The double-mutation rate was 16% among patients with BRAF mutations but 5% among patients with other genomic abnormalities (mid-P = .045). Differences were not found in survival between patients with BRAF mutations and those with other genomic abnormalities (P > .20). CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutations occurred in 2.2% of advanced-stage lung adenocarcinomas, were most commonly V600E, and were associated with distinct clinicopathologic features in comparison with other genomic subtypes and with a high mutation rate in more than 1 gene. These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive genomic profiling in assessing patients with advanced lung adenocarcinomas.

A randomized phase II study of carboplatin with weekly or every-3-week nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (abraxane) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platinum plus etoposide is the standard therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) and is associated with significant myelosuppression. We hypothesized that the combination of carboplatin and nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) would be better tolerated. We investigated carboplatin with nab-paclitaxel on every-3-week and weekly schedules. METHODS: This noncomparative randomized phase II trial used a two-stage design. The primary objective was objective response rate, and secondary objectives were progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. Patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 and no prior chemotherapy were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to arm A (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] of 6 on day 1 and nab-paclitaxel of 300 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks) or arm B (carboplatin AUC of 6 on day 1 and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 21 days). Response was assessed after every two cycles. RESULTS: Patients required frequent dose reductions, treatment delays, and omission of the weekly therapy. The trial was closed because of slow accrual. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel demonstrated activity in ES-SCLC but required frequent dose adjustments.

The role of anti-angiogenesis in non-small-cell lung cancer: an update.

Recognition of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway as a key mediator of angiogenesis has led to the clinical study of several VEGF and VEGF receptor (VEGFR) targeted therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These targeted therapies include neutralizing antibodies to VEGF (bevacizumab and aflibercept) and VEGFR-2 (ramucirumab) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with selectivity for the VEGFRs. Bevacizumab and ramucirumab are associated with survival advantages in the treatment of advanced NSCLC: bevacizumab in the first-line setting in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel and ramucirumab in combination with docetaxel in the second-line setting. The VEGFR-2 TKIs have been associated with responses and improved progression-free survival in selected NSCLC settings; however, this level of activity has thus far been insufficient to confer significant survival advantages. This review will focus on the current state of VEGF targeted therapies in NSCLC.

Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. METHODS: The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4-12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 µg lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25.6 months (95% CI 22.5-29.2) with tecemotide versus 22.3 months (19.6-25.5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0.88, 0.75-1.03; p=0.123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30.8 months (95% CI 25.6-36.8) compared with 20.6 months (17.4-23.9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0.78, 0.64-0.95; p=0.016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19.4 months [95% CI 17.6-23.1] vs 24.6 months [18.8-33.0], respectively; adjusted HR 1.12, 0.87-1.44; p=0.38). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. FUNDING: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).