ARCTIC: durvalumab with or without tremelimumab as third-line or later treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) experience disease progression after first- and second-line treatment; more treatment options are required for these patients. ARCTIC, a phase III, randomized, open-label study, assessed durvalumab ± tremelimumab versus standard of care (SoC) as ≥ third-line treatment of mNSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARCTIC comprised two independent sub-studies. Study A: 126 patients with ≥25% of tumor cells (TCs) expressing programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) were randomized (1 : 1) to durvalumab [up to 12 months 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w)] or SoC. Study B: 469 patients with PD-L1 TC <25% were randomized (3 : 2 : 2 : 1) to durvalumab + tremelimumab (12 weeks durvalumab 20 mg/kg + tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w then 34 weeks durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), SoC, durvalumab (up to 12 months 10 mg/kg q2w), or tremelimumab (24 weeks 10 mg/kg q4w then 24 weeks q12w). Primary end points: overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for durvalumab versus SoC (study A; descriptive only) and durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC (study B). RESULTS: Study A: median OS 11.7 (durvalumab) versus 6.8 (SoC) months {hazard ratio (HR) 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.93]}; median PFS 3.8 (durvalumab) versus 2.2 (SoC) months [HR 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.04)]. Study B: median OS 11.5 (durvalumab + tremelimumab) versus 8.7 (SoC) months [HR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.05); P = 0.109]. Median PFS of 3.5 months for both groups [HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59-1.01); P = 0.056]. Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events: 9.7% (durvalumab) and 44.4% (SoC; study A) and 22.0% (durvalumab + tremelimumab) and 36.4% (SoC; study B). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pretreated patients with mNSCLC, durvalumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS versus SoC (patients with PD-L1 TC ≥25%); numerical improvements in OS and PFS for durvalumab + tremelimumab versus SoC were observed (patients with PD-L1 TC <25%). Safety profiles were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02352948.

Effect of dose adjustment on the safety and efficacy of afatinib for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma: post hoc analyses of the randomized LUX-Lung 3 and 6 trials.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib 40 mg/day is approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the case of drug-related grade ≥3 or selected prolonged grade 2 adverse events (AEs), the dose can be reduced by 10 mg decrements to a minimum of 20 mg. Here, we evaluate the influence of afatinib dose reduction on AEs, pharmacokinetics and progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase III LUX-Lung 3 and 6 (LL3/6) trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in LL3 (global) and LL6 (China, Thailand, South Korea) were randomized to afatinib or chemotherapy. All afatinib-treated patients (LL3, n = 229; LL6, n = 239) were included in the post hoc analyses. Incidence and severity of common AEs before and after afatinib dose reduction were assessed. Afatinib plasma concentrations were compared in patients who reduced to 30 mg versus those remaining at 40 mg. PFS was compared between patients who dose reduced within the first 6 months of treatment and those who did not. RESULTS: Dose reductions occurred in 53.3% (122/229) and 28.0% (67/239) of patients in LL3 and LL6, respectively; most (86.1% and 82.1%) within the first 6 months of treatment. Dose reduction led to decreases in the incidence of drug-related AEs, and was more likely in patients with higher afatinib plasma concentrations. On day 43, patients who dose reduced to 30 mg (n = 59) had geometric mean afatinib plasma concentrations of 23.3 ng/ml, versus 22.8 ng/ml in patients who remained on 40 mg (n = 284). The median PFS was similar in patients who dose reduced during the first 6 months versus those who did not {LL3: 11.3 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio (HR) 1.25]; LL6: 12.3 versus 11.0 months (HR 1.00)}. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerability-guided dose adjustment is an effective measure to reduce afatinib-related AEs without affecting therapeutic efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00949650 and NCT0112393.

Randomized phase II study of two intercalated combinations of eribulin mesylate and erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II, open-label study investigated intercalated combinations of eribulin and erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to eribulin mesylate 2.0 mg/m(2) on day 1 with erlotinib 150 mg on days 2-16 (21-day regimen) or eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 with erlotinib 150 mg on days 15-28 (28-day regimen). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three patients received ≥ 1 cycle of therapy (63, 21-day regimen; 60, 28-day regimen). ORRs were 13% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6%-24%] and 17% (95% CI 8%-29%), and disease control rates were 48% (95% CI 35%-61%) and 63% (95% CI 50%-75%) for the 21- and 28-day regimens, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were similar with both regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated with common grade ≥ 3 toxicities being neutropenia, asthenia/fatigue, and dyspnoea. Sequential administration of erlotinib did not interfere with the pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin. CONCLUSION: Intercalated combination of eribulin and erlotinib demonstrated modest activity and the addition of erlotinib did not appear to improve treatment outcome in an unselected population. The 28-day regimen is suitable for further investigation. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01104155.