Lobar or Sublobar Resection for Peripheral Stage IA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The increased detection of small-sized peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has renewed interest in sublobar resection in lieu of lobectomy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in which patients with NSCLC clinically staged as T1aN0 (tumor size, ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned to undergo sublobar resection or lobar resection after intraoperative confirmation of node-negative disease. The primary end point was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomization and disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points were overall survival, locoregional and systemic recurrence, and pulmonary functions. RESULTS: From June 2007 through March 2017, a total of 697 patients were assigned to undergo sublobar resection (340 patients) or lobar resection (357 patients). After a median follow-up of 7 years, sublobar resection was noninferior to lobar resection for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.24). In addition, overall survival after sublobar resection was similar to that after lobar resection (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.26). The 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% (95% CI, 57.9 to 68.8) after sublobar resection and 64.1% (95% CI, 58.5 to 69.0) after lobar resection. The 5-year overall survival was 80.3% (95% CI, 75.5 to 84.3) after sublobar resection and 78.9% (95% CI, 74.1 to 82.9) after lobar resection. No substantial difference was seen between the two groups in the incidence of locoregional or distant recurrence. At 6 months postoperatively, a between-group difference of 2 percentage points was measured in the median percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, favoring the sublobar-resection group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with peripheral NSCLC with a tumor size of 2 cm or less and pathologically confirmed node-negative disease in the hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy with respect to disease-free survival. Overall survival was similar with the two procedures. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CALGB 140503 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00499330.).

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy confers a modest benefit over surgery alone for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early-phase trials, nivolumab-based neoadjuvant regimens have shown promising clinical activity; however, data from phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The primary end points were event-free survival and pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS: The median event-free survival was 31.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.2 to not reached) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7) with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; 97.38% CI, 0.43 to 0.91; P = 0.005). The percentage of patients with a pathological complete response was 24.0% (95% CI, 18.0 to 31.0) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6 to 5.6), respectively (odds ratio, 13.94; 99% CI, 3.49 to 55.75; P<0.001). Results for event-free survival and pathological complete response across most subgroups favored nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI, 0.30 to 1.07) and did not meet the criterion for significance. Of the patients who underwent randomization, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group underwent surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response than chemotherapy alone. The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase the incidence of adverse events or impede the feasibility of surgery. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 816 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02998528.).

Plain language summary of the CheckMate 816 study results: nivolumab plus chemotherapy given before surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: In this article, we summarize results from the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 816 clinical study that were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2022. The goal of CheckMate 816 was to find out if nivolumab, an immunotherapy that activates a person's immune system (the body's natural defense system) to fight cancer, plus chemotherapy works better than chemotherapy alone when given before surgery in people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that can be removed surgically (resectable NSCLC). WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STUDY?: Adults who had not previously taken medications to treat NSCLC and whose cancer could be removed with surgery were included in CheckMate 816. During this study, a computer randomly assigned the treatment each person would receive before surgery for NSCLC. In total, 179 people were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy, and 179 people were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone. The researchers assessed whether people who received nivolumab plus chemotherapy lived longer without the cancer geting worse or coming back and whether there were any cancer cells left in the tumor and lymph nodes removed by surgery. The researchers also assessed how adding nivolumab to chemotherapy affected the timing and outcomes of surgery and whether the combination of these drugs was safe. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that people who took nivolumab plus chemotherapy lived longer without the cancer getting worse or coming back compared with those who took chemotherapy alone. More people in the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group had no cancer cells left in the tumor and lymph nodes removed by surgery. Most people went on to have surgery in both treatment groups; the people who took nivolumab plus chemotherapy instead of chemotherapy alone had less extensive surgeries and were more likely to have good outcomes after less extensive surgeries. Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy did not lead to an increase in the rate of side effects compared with chemotherapy alone, and side effects were generally mild and manageable. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Results from CheckMate 816 support the benefit of using nivolumab plus chemotherapy before surgery for people with resectable NSCLC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02998528 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase I study of nab-paclitaxel-based induction followed by nab-paclitaxel-based concurrent chemotherapy and re-irradiation in previously treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is associated with poor overall survival (OS). Prior studies suggested incorporation of nab-paclitaxel (A) may improve outcomes in recurrent HNSCC. METHODS: This Phase I study evaluated induction with carboplatin and A followed by concomitant FHX (infusional 5-fluorouracil, hydroxyurea and twice-daily radiation therapy administered every other week) plus A with cohort dose escalation ranging from 10-100 mg/m2 in recurrent HNSCC. The primary endpoint was maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of A when given in combination with FHX (AFHX). RESULTS: Forty-eight eligible pts started induction; 28 pts started AFHX and were evaluable for toxicity. Two DLTs occurred (both Grade 4 mucositis) at a dose level 20 mg/m2. No further DLTs were observed with subsequent dose escalation. The MTD and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of A was 100 mg/m2. CONCLUSIONS: In this Phase I study, the RP2D of A with FHX is 100 mg/m2 (AFHX). The role of re-irradiation with immunotherapy warrants further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: This clinical trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847326.

Long-term Outcomes with Nivolumab as First-line Treatment in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: Subgroup Analysis of CheckMate 141.

In the randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial, nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at primary analysis among 361 patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) post-platinum therapy. Nivolumab versus IC as first-line treatment also improved OS among patients with R/M SCCHN who progressed on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary setting at 1-year follow-up. In the present long-term follow-up analysis of patients receiving first-line treatment, OS benefit with nivolumab (n = 50) versus IC (n = 26) was maintained (median: 7.7 months versus 3.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94) at 2 years. No new safety signals were identified. In summary, this long-term 2-year analysis of CheckMate 141 supports the use of nivolumab as a first-line treatment for patients with platinum-refractory R/M SCCHN.

Prospective study evaluating dynamic changes of cell-free HPV DNA in locoregional viral-associated oropharyngeal cancer treated with induction chemotherapy and response-adaptive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) has a favorable prognosis which has led to efforts to de-intensify treatment. Response-adaptive de-escalated treatment is promising, however improved biomarkers are needed. Quantitative cell-free HPV-DNA (cfHPV-DNA) in plasma represents an attractive non-invasive biomarker for grading treatment response and post-treatment surveillance. This prospective study evaluates dynamic changes in cfHPV-DNA during induction therapy, definitive (chemo)radiotherapy, and post-treatment surveillance in the context of risk and response-adaptive treatment for HPV + OPC. METHODS: Patients with locoregional HPV + OPC are stratified into two cohorts: High risk (HR) (T4, N3, [Formula: see text] 20 pack-year smoking history (PYH), or non-HPV16 subtype); Low risk (LR) (all other patients). All patients receive induction chemotherapy with three cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel. LR with ≥ 50% response receive treatment on the single-modality arm (minimally-invasive surgery or radiation alone to 50 Gy). HR with ≥ 50% response or LR with ≥ 30% and < 50% response receive treatment on the intermediate de-escalation arm (chemoradiation to 50 Gy with cisplatin). All other patients receive treatment on the regular dose arm with chemoradiation to 70 Gy with concurrent cisplatin. Plasma cfHPV-DNA is assessed during induction, (chemo)radiation, and post-treatment surveillance. The primary endpoint is correlation of quantitative cfHPV-DNA with radiographic response. DISCUSSION: A de-escalation treatment paradigm that reduces toxicity without compromising survival outcomes is urgently needed for HPV + OPC. Response to induction chemotherapy is predictive and prognostic and can select candidates for de-escalated definitive therapy. Assessment of quantitative cfHPV-DNA in the context of response-adaptive treatment of represents a promising reliable and convenient biomarker-driven strategy to guide personalized treatment in HPV + OPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 1st, 2020 with Identifier: NCT04572100 .

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other. METHODS: We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies). FINDINGS: 115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRTP) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRTP (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (ICTaxPF-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and ICTaxPF followed by CLRT (80%). INTERPRETATION: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or ICTaxPF-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. FUNDINGS: French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.

Optimizing Treatment De-Escalation in Head and Neck Cancer: Current and Future Perspectives.

Treatment of locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma involves a multidisciplinary approach that combines surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. These curative strategies are associated with significant acute and long-term toxicities. With the emergence of human papillomavirus (HPV) as an etiologic factor associated primarily with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, higher cure rates juxtaposed with substantial treatment-related morbidity and mortality has led to interest in de-escalated therapeutic strategies, with the goal of optimizing oncologic outcomes while reducing treatment-related toxicity. Currently explored strategies include replacing, reducing, or omitting cytotoxic chemotherapy; reducing dose or volume of radiotherapy; and incorporation of less-invasive surgical approaches. Potential biomarkers to select patients for treatment de-escalation include clinical risk stratification, adjuvant de-escalation based on pathologic features, response to induction therapy, and molecular markers. The optimal patient selection and de-escalation strategy is critically important in the evolving treatment of locoregional head and neck cancer. Recently, two large phase III trials, RTOG 1016 and De-ESCALaTE, failed to de-escalate treatment in HPV-associated head and neck cancer by demonstrating inferior outcomes by replacing cisplatin with cetuximab in combination with radiation. This serves as a cautionary tale in the future design of de-escalation trials in this patient population, which will need to leverage toxicity and efficacy endpoints. Our review summarizes completed and ongoing de-escalation trials in head and neck cancer, with particular emphasis on biomarkers for patient selection and clinical trial design. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The toxicity associated with standard multimodality treatment for head and neck cancer underscores the need to seek less-intensive therapies with a reduced long-term symptom burden through de-escalated treatment paradigms that minimize toxicity while maintaining oncologic control in appropriately selected patients. Controversy regarding the optimal de-escalation strategy and criteria for patient selection for de-escalated therapy has led to multiple parallel strategies undergoing clinical investigation. Well-designed trials that optimize multimodal strategies are needed. Given the absence of positive randomized trials testing de-escalated therapy to date, practicing oncologists should exercise caution and administer established standard-of-care therapy outside the context of a clinical trial.

Biomarker-driven therapies for previously treated squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Lung-MAP SWOG S1400): a biomarker-driven master protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP; S1400) is a completed biomarker-driven master protocol designed to address an unmet need for better therapies for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung-MAP (S1400) was created to establish an infrastructure for biomarker screening and rapid regulatory intent evaluation of targeted therapies and was the first biomarker-driven master protocol initiated with the US National Cancer Institute (NCI). METHODS: Lung-MAP (S1400) was done within the National Clinical Trials Network of the NCI using a public-private partnership. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had stage IV or recurrent squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. The study included a screening component using the FoundationOne assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA) for next-generation sequencing, and a clinical trial component with biomarker-driven substudies and non-match substudies for patients who were ineligible for biomarker-driven substudies. Patients were pre-screened and received their substudy assignment upon progression, or they were screened at progression and received their substudy assignment upon completion of testing. Patients could enrol onto additional substudies after progression on a substudy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02154490, and all research related to Lung-MAP (S1400) is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2014, and Jan 28, 2019, 1864 patients enrolled and 1841 (98·9%) submitted tissue. 1674 (90·9%) of 1841 patients had biomarker results, and 1404 (83·9%) of 1674 patients received a substudy assignment. Of the assigned patients, 655 (46·7%) registered to a substudy. The biomarker-driven substudies evaluated taselisib (targeting PIK3CA alterations), palbociclib (cell cycle gene alterations), AZD4547 (FGFR alteration), rilotumumab plus erlotinib (MET), talazoparib (homologous recombination repair deficiency), and telisotuzumab vedotin (MET). The non-match substudies evaluated durvalumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-naive disease, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab for anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 relapsed disease. Combining data from the substudies, ten (7·0%) of 143 patients responded to targeted therapy, 53 (16·8%) of 315 patients responded to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy for immunotherapy-naive disease, and three (5·4%) of 56 responded to docetaxel in the second line of therapy. Median overall survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·8-7·8) for the targeted therapy groups, 7·7 months (6·7-9·2) for the docetaxel groups, and 10·8 months (9·4-12·3) for the anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-containing groups. Median progression-free survival was 2·5 months (95% CI 1·7-2·8) for the targeted therapy groups, 2·7 months (1·9-2·9) for the docetaxel groups, and 3·0 months (2·7-3·9) for the anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1-containing groups. INTERPRETATION: Lung-MAP (S1400) met its goal to quickly address biomarker-driven therapy questions in squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. In early 2019, a new screening protocol was implemented expanding to all histological types of non-small-cell lung cancer and to add focus on immunotherapy combinations for anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapy-relapsed disease. With these changes, Lung-MAP continues to meet its goal to focus on unmet needs in the treatment of advanced lung cancers. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, and AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Pfizer through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

A randomized phase 2 study of temsirolimus and cetuximab versus temsirolimus alone in recurrent/metastatic, cetuximab-resistant head and neck cancer: The MAESTRO study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cetuximab-resistant, recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have poor outcomes. This study hypothesized that dual blockade of mammalian target of rapamycin and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) would overcome cetuximab resistance on the basis of the role of phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling in preclinical models of EGFR resistance. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized clinical study, patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC with documented progression on cetuximab (in any line in the recurrent/metastatic setting) received 25 mg of temsirolimus weekly plus cetuximab at 400/250 mg/m2 weekly (TC) or single-agent temsirolimus (T). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) in the TC arm versus the T arm. Response rates, overall survival, and toxicity were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized to therapy with TC or T alone. There was no difference for the primary outcome of median PFS (TC arm, 3.5 months; T arm, 3.5 months). The response rate was 12.5% in the TC arm (5 responses, including 1 complete response [2.5%]) and 2.5% in the T arm (1 partial response; P = .10). Responses were clinically meaningful in the TC arm (range, 3.6-9.1 months) but not in the T-alone arm (1.9 months). Fatigue, electrolyte abnormalities, and leukopenia were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events and occurred in less than 20% of patients in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS. However, TC induced responses in cetuximab-refractory patients with good tolerability. The post hoc observation of activity in patients with acquired resistance (after prior benefit from cetuximab monotherapy) may warrant further investigation.

A randomized phase 2 network trial of tivantinib plus cetuximab versus cetuximab in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: MET signaling is a well described mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, and MET overexpression is common in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs). In the current trial, the authors compared the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ197) in combination with cetuximab (the TC arm) versus a control arm that received cetuximab monotherapy (C) in patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: In total, 78 evaluable patients with cetuximab-naive, platinum-refractory HNSCC were enrolled, including 40 on the TC arm and 38 on the C arm (stratified by human papillomavirus [HPV] status). Patients received oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg/m2 once every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the response rate (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and secondary outcomes included progression-free and overall survival. After patients progressed on the C arm, tivantinib monotherapy was optional. RESULTS: The response rate was 7.5% in the TC arm (N = 3; 1 complete response) and 7.9% in the C arm (N = 3; not significantly different [NS]). The median progression-free survival in both arms was 4 months (NS), and the median overall survival was 8 months (NS). Both treatments were well tolerated, with a trend toward increased hematologic toxicities in the TC arm (12.5% had grade 3 leukopenia). The response rate in 31 HPV-positive/p16-positive patients was 0% in both arms, whereas the response rate in HPV-negative patients was 12.7% (12.5% in the TC arm and 13% in the C arm). Fifteen patients received tivantinib monotherapy, and no responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combined tivantinib plus cetuximab does not significantly improve the response rate or survival compared with cetuximab alone but does increase toxicity in an unselected HNSCC population. Cetuximab responses appear to be limited to patients who have HPV-negative HNSCC. MET-aberration-focused trials for HNSCC and the use of higher potency, selective MET inhibitors remain of interest.

A pooled analysis of individual patient data from National Clinical Trials Network clinical trials of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for limited-stage small cell lung cancer in elderly patients versus younger patients.

BACKGROUND: Platinum and etoposide with thoracic radiation followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation constitute the standard treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). Many patients with LS-SCLC are elderly with comorbidities. METHODS: Individual patient data were collected from 11 phase 2 or 3 trials for LS-SCLC conducted by the National Clinical Trials Network and activated from 1990 to 2010. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), the rate of severe adverse events, and off-treatment reasons. The outcomes were compared for patients 70 years old or older (elderly patients) and patients younger than 70 years (younger patients). RESULTS: Individual patient data from 1049 younger patients (81%) and 254 elderly patients (19%) were analyzed. In the multivariate model, elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.63; median OS for elderly patients, 17.8 months; OS for younger patients, 23.5 months) and worse PFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39; median PFS for elderly patients, 10.6 months; median PFS for younger patients, 12.3 months). Elderly patients, in comparison with younger patients, experienced more grade 5 adverse events (8% vs 3%; P < .01) and more grade 3 or higher dyspnea (11% vs 7%; P = .03) but less grade 3 or higher esophagitis/dysphagia (14% vs 19%; P = .04) and less grade 3 or higher vomiting (11% vs 17%; P = .01). Elderly patients completed treatment less often, discontinued treatment because of adverse events and patient refusal more frequently, and died during treatment more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with LS-SCLC have worse PFS and OS and more difficulty in tolerating therapy. Future trials should incorporate assessments of elderly patients, novel monitoring of adverse events, and more tolerable radiation and systemic therapies.

Nivolumab treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in CheckMate 141: A subgroup analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Response patterns with immune checkpoint inhibitors may be different from those with chemotherapy. Therefore, assessment of response to immunotherapy with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, could result in premature treatment termination. The randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 trial (NCT02105636), which evaluated nivolumab in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum therapy, allowed treatment beyond first RECIST-defined progression (TBP) according to protocol-specified criteria. METHODS: In CheckMate 141, patients with RECIST-defined progression who had a stable performance status and demonstrated clinical benefit without rapid disease progression were permitted to receive TBP with nivolumab at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until further progression, which was defined as an additional ≥10% increase in tumor volume. This post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes for patients who received TBP with nivolumab. RESULTS: Of 240 patients randomized to nivolumab, 146 experienced RECIST-defined progression. Sixty-two of these patients received TBP, and 84 discontinued treatment (no TBP). Among the 60 TBP patients evaluable for response, 15 (25%) had no change in their tumor burden, and 15 (25%) had reductions in target lesion size; 3 patients (5%) had reductions >30%. The median overall survival among TBP patients was 12.7 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.6 months). No new safety signals were observed with TBP. Exploratory analyses of immune cell biomarkers suggested a potential relationship with initial and TBP responses. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden reduction was noted in a proportion of patients who received TBP with nivolumab in CheckMate 141. Additional research is warranted to identify factors predictive of a TBP benefit in this population.

Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after platinum chemotherapy have a very poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody, was assessed as treatment for this condition. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 361 patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck whose disease had progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or standard, single-agent systemic therapy (methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab). The primary end point was overall survival. Additional end points included progression-free survival, rate of objective response, safety, and patient-reported quality of life. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 9.1) in the nivolumab group versus 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.0) in the group that received standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab than with standard therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 97.73% CI, 0.51 to 0.96; P=0.01), and the estimates of the 1-year survival rate were approximately 19 percentage points higher with nivolumab than with standard therapy (36.0% vs. 16.6%). The median progression-free survival was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.1) with nivolumab versus 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1) with standard therapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.13; P=0.32). The rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 19.7% with nivolumab versus 9.9% with standard therapy. The response rate was 13.3% in the nivolumab group versus 5.8% in the standard-therapy group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 13.1% of the patients in the nivolumab group versus 35.1% of those in the standard-therapy group. Physical, role, and social functioning was stable in the nivolumab group, whereas it was meaningfully worse in the standard-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, treatment with nivolumab resulted in longer overall survival than treatment with standard, single-agent therapy. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 141 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105636 .).

Efficacy and safety results of depatuxizumab mafodotin (ABT-414) in patients with advanced solid tumors likely to overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) alterations are associated with multiple cancers. Current EGFR-directed therapies have led to increased efficacy but are associated with specific side effects. The antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (depatux-m) targets EGFR with a monoclonal antibody linked to a cytotoxin, and is highly tumor-specific. METHODS: This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of depatux-m in patients who had advanced solid tumors with known wild-type EGFR overexpression, amplification, or mutated EGFR variant III. A 3 + 3 dose escalation was used, and 2 dosing schedules were evaluated. Depatux-m also was manufactured under an alternate process to reduce the drug load and improve the safety profile, and it was tested at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In another cohort, prolonged infusion time of depatux-m was evaluated; and a cohort with confirmed EGFR amplification also was evaluated at the MTD. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were treated. The MTD and the recommended phase 2 dose for depatux-m was 3.0 mg/kg. Common adverse events (AEs) were blurred vision (48%) and fatigue (41%). A majority of patients (66%) experienced 1 or more ocular AEs. Grade 3 or 4 AEs were observed in 43% of patients. One patient with EGFR-amplified, triple-negative breast cancer had a partial response. Stable disease was observed in 23% of patients. Pharmacokinetics revealed that depatux-m exposures were approximately dose-proportional. CONCLUSIONS: Depatux-m resulted in infrequent nonocular AEs but increased ocular AEs. Patient follow-up confirmed that ocular AEs were reversible. Lowering the drug-antibody ratio did not decrease the number of ocular AEs. A partial response in 1 patient with EGFR-amplified disease provides the opportunity to study depatux-m in diseases with a high incidence of EGFR amplification. Cancer 2018;124:2174-83. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

CheckMate 141: 1-Year Update and Subgroup Analysis of Nivolumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.

Nivolumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) vs investigator's choice (IC) of chemotherapy at the primary analysis of randomized, open-label, phase 3 CheckMate 141 in patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Here, we report that OS benefit with nivolumab was maintained at a minimum follow-up of 11.4 months. Further, OS benefit with nivolumab vs IC was also noted among patients who received first-line treatment for R/M SCCHN after progressing on platinum therapy for locally advanced disease in the adjuvant or primary (i.e., with radiation) setting.

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, international phase 3 study, we assigned patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that had progressed during or after platinum-based doublet chemotherapy to receive nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks or docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. The median overall survival was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 15.0) among 292 patients in the nivolumab group and 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.7) among 290 patients in the docetaxel group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 96% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P=0.002). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 51% (95% CI, 45 to 56) with nivolumab versus 39% (95% CI, 33 to 45) with docetaxel. With additional follow-up, the overall survival rate at 18 months was 39% (95% CI, 34 to 45) with nivolumab versus 23% (95% CI, 19 to 28) with docetaxel. The response rate was 19% with nivolumab versus 12% with docetaxel (P=0.02). Although progression-free survival did not favor nivolumab over docetaxel (median, 2.3 months and 4.2 months, respectively), the rate of progression-free survival at 1 year was higher with nivolumab than with docetaxel (19% and 8%, respectively). Nivolumab was associated with even greater efficacy than docetaxel across all end points in subgroups defined according to prespecified levels of tumor-membrane expression (≥1%, ≥5%, and ≥10%) of the PD-1 ligand. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 10% of the patients in the nivolumab group, as compared with 54% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC that had progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy, overall survival was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 057 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01673867.).

Nivolumab versus standard, single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141): health-related quality-of-life results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have few treatment options and poor prognosis. Nivolumab significantly improved survival of this patient population when compared with standard single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in Checkmate 141; here we report the effect of nivolumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: CheckMate 141 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who progressed within 6 months after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121) of methotrexate (40-60 mg/m2 of body surface area), docetaxel (30-40 mg/m2), or cetuximab (250 mg/m2 after a loading dose of 400 mg/m2) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. On Jan 26, 2016, the independent data monitoring committee reviewed the data at the planned interim analysis and declared overall survival superiority for nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (primary endpoint; described previously). The protocol was amended to allow patients in the investigator's choice group to cross over to nivolumab. All patients not on active therapy are being followed for survival. As an exploratory endpoint, PROs were assessed at baseline, week 9, and every 6 weeks thereafter using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC head and neck cancer-specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35), and the three-level European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Differences within and between treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among patients with baseline and at least one other assessment. All randomised patients were included in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration analyses. Median time to clinically meaningful deterioration was analysed by Kaplan-Meier methods. CheckMate 141 was registered with ClinicalTrials.org, number NCT02105636. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between May 29, 2014, and July 31, 2015, and subsequently 361 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121). Among them, 129 patients (93 in the nivolumab group and 36 in the investigator's choice group) completed any of the PRO questionnaires at baseline and at least one other assessment. Treatment with nivolumab resulted in adjusted mean changes from baseline to week 15 ranging from -2·1 to 5·4 across functional and symptom domains measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30, with no domains indicating clinically meaningful deterioration. By contrast, eight (53%) of the 15 domains in the investigator's choice group showed clinically meaningful deterioration (10 points or more) at week 15 (change from baseline range, -24·5 to 2·4). Similarly, on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, clinically meaningful worsening at week 15 was seen in no domains in the nivolumab group and eight (44%) of 18 domains in the investigator's choice group. Patients in the nivolumab group had a clinically meaningful improvement (according to a difference of 7 points or greater) in adjusted mean change from baseline to week 15 on the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, in contrast to a clinically meaningful deterioration in the investigator's choice group (7·3 vs -7·8). Differences between groups were significant and clinically meaningful at weeks 9 and 15 in favour of nivolumab for role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, dyspnoea, and appetite loss on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and pain and sensory problems on the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Median time to deterioration was significantly longer with nivolumab versus investigator's choice for 13 (37%) of 35 domains assessed across the three questionnaires. INTERPRETATION: In this exploratory analysis of CheckMate 141, nivolumab stabilised symptoms and functioning from baseline to weeks 9 and 15, whereas investigator's choice led to clinically meaningful deterioration. Nivolumab delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes compared with single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In view of the major unmet need in this population and the importance of maintaining or improving quality of life for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, these data support nivolumab as a new standard-of-care option in this setting. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Validation of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Endpoint for Overall Survival in Malignant Mesothelioma: Analysis of Cancer and Leukemia Group B and North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Trials.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) can be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in malignant mesothelioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual data were collected from 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (615 patients) and 2 North Central Cancer Treatment Group (101 patients) phase II trials. The effects of 5 risk factors for OS and PFS, including age, histology, performance status (PS), white blood cell count, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk score, were used in the analysis. Individual-level surrogacy was assessed by Kendall's tau through a Clayton bivariate Copula survival (CBCS) model. Summary-level surrogacy was evaluated via the association between logarithms of the hazard ratio (log HR)-log HROS and log HRPFS-measured in R2 from a weighted least-square (WLS) regression model and the CBCS model. RESULTS: The median PFS for all patients was 3.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-3.5 months) and the median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.5-8.0 months). Moderate correlations between PFS and OS were observed across all risk factors at the individual level, with Kendall's tau ranging from 0.46 to 0.47. The summary-level surrogacy varied among risk factors. The Copula R2 ranged from 0.51 for PS to 0.78 for histology. The WLS R2 ranged from 0.26 for EORTC and PS to 0.67 for age. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses demonstrated low to moderate individual-level surrogacy between PFS and OS. At the summary level, the surrogacy between PFS and OS varied significantly across different risk factors. With a short postprogression survival and a moderate correlation between PFS and OS, there is no evidence that PFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for OS in malignant mesothelioma. The Oncologist 2017;22:189-198Implications for Practice: For better disease management and for more efficient clinical trial designs, it is important to know if progression-free survival (PFS) is a good surrogate endpoint for overall survival in malignant mesothelioma. With a relatively large database of 17 phase II trials and 716 patients from Cancer and Leukemia Group B and North Central Cancer Treatment Group, we conducted statistical analyses and found that there is no evidence to suggest that PFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for OS for malignant mesothelioma. Future research work is needed to find alternative surrogate endpoints for OS.