Combined analyses of within-host SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics and information on past exposures to the virus in a human cohort identifies intrinsic differences of Omicron and Delta variants.

The emergence of successive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOCs) during 2020 to 2022, each exhibiting increased epidemic growth relative to earlier circulating variants, has created a need to understand the drivers of such growth. However, both pathogen biology and changing host characteristics-such as varying levels of immunity-can combine to influence replication and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within and between hosts. Disentangling the role of variant and host in individual-level viral shedding of VOCs is essential to inform Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) planning and response and interpret past epidemic trends. Using data from a prospective observational cohort study of healthy adult volunteers undergoing weekly occupational health PCR screening, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical model to reconstruct individual-level viral kinetics and estimate how different factors shaped viral dynamics, measured by PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values over time. Jointly accounting for both interindividual variation in Ct values and complex host characteristics-such as vaccination status, exposure history, and age-we found that age and number of prior exposures had a strong influence on peak viral replication. Older individuals and those who had at least 5 prior antigen exposures to vaccination and/or infection typically had much lower levels of shedding. Moreover, we found evidence of a correlation between the speed of early shedding and duration of incubation period when comparing different VOCs and age groups. Our findings illustrate the value of linking information on participant characteristics, symptom profile and infecting variant with prospective PCR sampling, and the importance of accounting for increasingly complex population exposure landscapes when analysing the viral kinetics of VOCs. Trial Registration: The Legacy study is a prospective observational cohort study of healthy adult volunteers undergoing weekly occupational health PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 at University College London Hospitals or at the Francis Crick Institute (NCT04750356) (22,23). The Legacy study was approved by London Camden and Kings Cross Health Research Authority Research and Ethics committee (IRAS number 286469). The Legacy study was approved by London Camden and Kings Cross Health Research Authority Research and Ethics committee (IRAS number 286469) and is sponsored by University College London Hospitals. Written consent was given by all participants.

CD19/CD22 targeting with cotransduced CAR T cells to prevent antigen-negative relapse after CAR T-cell therapy for B-cell ALL.

ABSTRACT: CD19-negative relapse is a leading cause of treatment failure after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. We investigated a CAR T-cell product targeting CD19 and CD22 generated by lentiviral cotransduction with vectors encoding our previously described fast-off rate CD19 CAR (AUTO1) combined with a novel CD22 CAR capable of effective signaling at low antigen density. Twelve patients with advanced B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia were treated (CARPALL [Immunotherapy with CD19/22 CAR Redirected T Cells for High Risk/Relapsed Paediatric CD19+ and/or CD22+ Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia] study, NCT02443831), a third of whom had failed prior licensed CAR therapy. Toxicity was similar to that of AUTO1 alone, with no cases of severe cytokine release syndrome. Of 12 patients, 10 (83%) achieved a measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative complete remission at 2 months after infusion. Of 10 responding patients, 5 had emergence of MRD (n = 2) or relapse (n = 3) with CD19- and CD22-expressing disease associated with loss of CAR T-cell persistence. With a median follow-up of 8.7 months, there were no cases of relapse due to antigen-negative escape. Overall survival was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%-91%) at 6 and 12 months. The 6- and 12-month event-free survival rates were 75% (95% CI, 41%-91%) and 60% (95% CI, 23%-84%), respectively. These data suggest dual targeting with cotransduction may prevent antigen-negative relapse after CAR T-cell therapy.

Within-host SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics informed by complex life course exposures reveals different intrinsic properties of Omicron and Delta variants.

The emergence of successive SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) during 2020-22, each exhibiting increased epidemic growth relative to earlier circulating variants, has created a need to understand the drivers of such growth. However, both pathogen biology and changing host characteristics - such as varying levels of immunity - can combine to influence replication and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within and between hosts. Disentangling the role of variant and host in individual-level viral shedding of VOCs is essential to inform COVID-19 planning and response, and interpret past epidemic trends. Using data from a prospective observational cohort study of healthy adult volunteers undergoing weekly occupational health PCR screening, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical model to reconstruct individual-level viral kinetics and estimate how different factors shaped viral dynamics, measured by PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values over time. Jointly accounting for both inter-individual variation in Ct values and complex host characteristics - such as vaccination status, exposure history and age - we found that age and number of prior exposures had a strong influence on peak viral replication. Older individuals and those who had at least five prior antigen exposures to vaccination and/or infection typically had much lower levels of shedding. Moreover, we found evidence of a correlation between the speed of early shedding and duration of incubation period when comparing different VOCs and age groups. Our findings illustrate the value of linking information on participant characteristics, symptom profile and infecting variant with prospective PCR sampling, and the importance of accounting for increasingly complex population exposure landscapes when analysing the viral kinetics of VOCs.

Evaluation of Nomacopan for Treatment of Bullous Pemphigoid: A Phase 2a Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Bullous pemphigoid is a difficult-to-treat autoimmune blistering skin disease that predominantly affects older adults and is associated with an increased mortality rate. Objective: To examine the safety and therapeutic potential of nomacopan, an inhibitor of leukotriene B4 and complement C5, in patients with bullous pemphigoid. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-group, phase 2a nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted in the dermatology departments of universities in the Netherlands and Germany. Participants were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2020. Older adult patients (aged ≥55 years) with mild to moderate, new-onset or relapsing bullous pemphigoid were recruited into the study. Interventions: Patients received nomacopan, 90 mg, subcutaneously on day 1 and 30 mg subcutaneously daily until day 42. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with grade 3 to 5 (severe) adverse events associated or possibly associated with nomacopan. Secondary end points included mean absolute and percentage changes in the Bullous Pemphigoid Disease Area Index (BPDAI) activity score, the BPDAI pruritus score, and the patient-reported outcome measures Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (TABQOL). Results: A total of 9 patients (median [range] age, 75 [55-85] years) with bullous pemphigoid were included in the trial, of whom 5 were women (55.6%). No serious adverse events associated with nomacopan were found. The mean (90% CI) BPDAI activity score decreased from 32.0 (8.7) points on day 1 to 19.6 (9.0) points on day 42. Seven of 9 patients (77.8%) responded to nomacopan with a reduction in the BPDAI activity score of at least 8 points between days 1 and 42; in 3 responders, the reduction was 80% or greater. On day 42, the mean (90% CI) BPDAI pruritus score had decreased by 6.8 (4.6) points from 17.6 (4.0) points on day 1. The mean (90% CI) DLQI score decreased from 11.3 (4.2) points at baseline to 6.4 (3.8) points by day 42, and the mean (90% CI) TABQOL score decreased from 14.6 (5.4) points at baseline to 10.3 (5.0) points on day 42. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that nomacopan can be well tolerated in older patients with bullous pemphigoid and may have therapeutic benefits for suppressing acute flares of this disease. A larger, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is warranted to confirm this safety profile and to establish nomacopan as a new therapeutic option for bullous pemphigoid. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04035733.

Ganetespib in Combination with Pemetrexed-Platinum Chemotherapy in Patients with Pleural Mesothelioma (MESO-02): A Phase Ib Trial.

PURPOSE: Ganetespib, a highly potent, small-molecule Heatshock protein 90 inhibitor, has potential efficacy in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) via activity on critical survival pathways and known synergies with antifolates and platinum chemotherapy. We conducted a dose-escalation study to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of ganetespib in patients with chemotherapy-naïve MPM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MESO-02 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01590160) was a nonrandomized, multicenter, phase Ib trial of 3-weekly ganetespib (100 mg/m2, 150 mg/m2, 200 mg/m2; days 1 and 15) with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2; day 1) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2; day 1) or carboplatin (area under concentration-time curve 5; day 1) in patients with MPM. Dose escalation was performed using the 3 + 3 design (cisplatin) and accelerated titration design (carboplatin). Secondary endpoints included best response, progression-free survival (PFS), and pharmacogenomic analyses. RESULTS: Of 27 patients enrolled (cisplatin, n = 16; carboplatin, n = 11), 3 experienced dose-limiting toxicities: grade 3 nausea (cisplatin, n = 1; carboplatin, n = 1) and grade 2 infusion-related reaction (carboplatin, n = 1). Ganetespib's MTD was 200 mg/m2. Partial response was observed in 14 of 27 patients (52%; 61% in 23 response-evaluable patients) and 13 of 21 (62%) with epithelioid histology. At the MTD, 10 of 18 patients (56%) had partial response, 15 of 18 (83%) had disease control, and median PFS was 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.0-10.0). One responder exhibited disease control beyond 50 months. Global loss of heterozygosity was associated with shorter time to progression (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24; P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Ganetespib can be combined safely with pemetrexed and platinum chemotherapy to treat patients with MPM. This class of agent should be investigated in larger randomized studies.

Long-Term Results from the IDEAL-CRT Phase 1/2 Trial of Isotoxically Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy for Stage II/III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The IDEAL-CRT phase 1/2 multicenter trial of isotoxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiation for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer investigated two 30-fraction schedules of 5 and 6 weeks' duration. We report toxicity, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both schedules, with long-term follow-up for the 6-week schedule. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients received isotoxically individualized tumor radiation doses of 63 to 71 Gy in 5 weeks or 63 to 73 Gy in 6 weeks, delivered concurrently with 2 cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. Eligibility criteria were the same for both schedules. RESULTS: One-hundred twenty patients (6% stage IIB, 68% IIIA, 26% IIIB, 1% IV) were recruited from 9 UK centers, 118 starting treatment. Median prescribed doses were 64.5 and 67.6 Gy for the 36 and 82 patients treated using the 5- and 6-week schedules. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis and early esophagitis rates were 3.4% and 5.9% overall and similar for each schedule individually. Late grade 2 esophageal toxicity occurred in 11.1% and 17.1% of 5- and 6-week patients. Grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in 17 (20.7%) 6-week patients but no 5-week patients. Four adverse events were grade 5, with 2 considered radiation therapy related. After median follow-up of 51.8 and 26.4 months for the 6- and 5-week schedules, median OS was 41.2 and 22.1 months, respectively, and median PFS was 21.1 and 8.0 months. In exploratory analyses, OS was significantly associated with schedule (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98; P = .04) and fractional clinical/internal target volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P = .05). PFS was also significantly associated with schedule (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Toxicity in IDEAL-CRT was acceptable. Survival was promising for 6-week patients and significantly longer than for 5-week patients. Survival might be further lengthened by following the 6-week schedule with an immune agent, motivating further study of such combined optimized treatments.

Sequential screening for lung cancer in a high-risk group: randomised controlled trial: LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of Surveillance using sputum and imaging for the EARly detection of lung Cancer in a High-risk group.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening detects early-stage lung cancer and reduces mortality. We proposed a sequential approach targeted to a high-risk group as a potentially efficient screening strategy. METHODS: LungSEARCH was a national multicentre randomised trial. Current/ex-smokers with mild/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were allocated (1:1) to have 5 years surveillance or not. Screened participants provided annual sputum samples for cytology and cytometry, and if abnormal were offered annual LDCT and autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB). Those with normal sputum provided annual samples. The primary end-point was the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at stage I/II (nonsmall cell) or limited disease (small cell). RESULTS: 1568 participants were randomised during 2007-2011 from 10 UK centres. 85.2% of those screened provided an adequate baseline sputum sample. There were 42 lung cancers among 785 screened individuals and 36 lung cancers among 783 controls. 54.8% (23 out of 42) of screened individuals versus 45.2% (14 out of 31) of controls with known staging were diagnosed with early-stage disease (one-sided p=0.24). Relative risk was 1.21 (95% CI 0.75-1.95) or 0.82 (95% CI 0.52-1.31) for early-stage or advanced cancers, respectively. Overall sensitivity for sputum (in those randomised to surveillance) was low (40.5%) with a cumulative false-positive rate (FPR) of 32.8%. 55% of cancers had normal sputum results throughout. Among sputum-positive individuals who had AFB, sensitivity was 45.5% and cumulative FPR was 39.5%; the corresponding measures for those who had LDCT were 100% and 16.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our sequential strategy, using sputum cytology/cytometry to select high-risk individuals for AFB and LDCT, did not lead to a clear stage shift and did not improve the efficiency of lung cancer screening.

The clinical role of VeriStrat testing in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer considered unfit for first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that the median survival of patients with poor prognosis non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered unfit for first-line platinum chemotherapy was <4 months. We evaluated whether VeriStrat could be used as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in this population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a randomised double-blind trial among patients with untreated advanced NSCLC considered unfit for platinum chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS) or multiple comorbidities. All patients received active supportive care (ASC) and were treated with either oral erlotinib or placebo daily. Five hundred twenty-seven patients had plasma samples for VeriStrat classification: good (VeriStrat Good [VSG]) or poor (VeriStrat Poor [VSP]). Main end-point was overall survival. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent patients had VSG, and 83% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2-3 at baseline. VeriStrat was strongly associated with survival. Among patients managed with ASC only, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.54 (p < 0.001) for VSG versus VSP. The association was consistent across patient factors: HR = 0.25 (p = 0.004) and HR = 0.56 (p < 0.001) for ECOG 0-1 and 2-3, respectively, HR = 0.49 (0070 < 0.001) for age≥75 years and HR = 0.59 (p = 0.007) for stage IV. Several ECOG 2-3 patients had long survival: 2-year survival was 8% for VSG patients who had ASC, compared with 0% for VSP. VeriStrat status did not predict benefit from erlotinib treatment because the HRs for erlotinib versus placebo were similar between VSG and VSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: VeriStrat was not a predictive marker for survival when considering first-line erlotinib for patients with NSCLC who had poor PS and were not recommended for platinum doublet therapies. However, VeriStrat was an independent prognostic marker of survival. It represents an objective measurement that could be considered alongside other patient factors to provide a more refined assessment of prognosis for this particular patient group. VSG patients could be selected for treatment trials because of better survival, while VSP patients can continue to be treated conservatively or offered trials of less toxic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN NUMBER: ISRCTN02370070.

Novel CT-Based Objective Imaging Biomarkers of Long-Term Radiation-Induced Lung Damage.

PURPOSE: Recent improvements in lung cancer survival have spurred an interest in understanding and minimizing long-term radiation-induced lung damage (RILD). However, there are still no objective criteria to quantify RILD, leading to variable reporting across centers and trials. We propose a set of objective imaging biomarkers for quantifying common radiologic findings observed 12 months after lung cancer radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Baseline and 12-month computed tomography (CT) scans of 27 patients from a phase 1/2 clinical trial of isotoxic chemoradiation were included in this study. To detect and measure the severity of RILD, 12 quantitative imaging biomarkers were developed. The biomarkers describe basic CT findings, including parenchymal change, volume reduction, and pleural change. The imaging biomarkers were implemented as semiautomated image analysis pipelines and were assessed against visual assessment of the occurrence of each change. RESULTS: Most of the biomarkers were measurable in each patient. The continuous nature of the biomarkers allows objective scoring of severity for each patient. For each imaging biomarker, the cohort was split into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of the biomarker by visual assessment, testing the hypothesis that the imaging biomarkers were different in the 2 groups. All features were statistically significant except for rotation of the main bronchus and diaphragmatic curvature. Most of the biomarkers were not strongly correlated with each other, suggesting that each of the biomarkers is measuring a separate element of RILD pathology. CONCLUSIONS: We developed objective CT-based imaging biomarkers that quantify the severity of radiologic lung damage after radiation therapy. These biomarkers are representative of typical radiologic findings of RILD.

Study protocol for the SARON trial: a multicentre, randomised controlled phase III trial comparing the addition of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and radical radiotherapy with standard chemotherapy alone for oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Following growing evidence to support the safety, local control (LC) and potential improvement in overall survival (OS) in patients with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that have been treated with local ablative therapy such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), we initiate the SARON trial to investigate the impact and feasibility of adding SABR/SRS and radical radiotherapy (RRT) following standard chemotherapy on OS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SARON is a large, randomised controlled, multicentre, phase III trial for patients with oligometastatic EGFR, ALK and ROS1 mutation negative NSCLC (1-3 sites of synchronous metastatic disease, one of which must be extracranial). 340 patients will be recruited over 3 years from approximately 30 UK sites and randomised to receive either standard platinum-doublet chemotherapy only (control arm) or standard chemotherapy followed by RRT/SABR to their primary tumour and then SABR/SRS to all other metastatic sites (investigational arm). The primary endpoint is OS; the study is powered to detect an improvement in median survival from 9.9 months in the control arm to 14.3 months in the investigational arm with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. The secondary endpoints are LC, progression-free survival, new distant metastasis-free survival, toxicity and quality of life. An early feasibility review will take place after 50 randomised patients. Patients requiring both conventional thoracic RT to the primary and SABR to a thoracic metastasis will be included in a thoracic SABR safety substudy to assess toxicity and planning issues in this subgroup of patients more thoroughly. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants are given a SARON patient information sheet and required to give written informed consent. Results will be submitted for presentation at local and international conferences and expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02417662. SPONSOR REFERENCE: UCL/13/0594.

Multicenter, Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pravastatin Added to First-Line Standard Chemotherapy in Small-Cell Lung Cancer (LUNGSTAR).

Purpose Treating small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains a therapeutic challenge. Experimental studies show that statins exert additive effects with agents, such as cisplatin, to impair tumor growth, and observational studies suggest that statins combined with anticancer therapies delay relapse and prolong life in several cancer types. To our knowledge, we report the first large, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of a statin with standard-of-care for patients with cancer, specifically SCLC. Patients and Methods Patients with confirmed SCLC (limited or extensive disease) and performance status 0 to 3 were randomly assigned to receive daily pravastatin 40 mg or placebo, combined with up to six cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicity. Results Eight hundred forty-six patients from 91 United Kingdom hospitals were recruited. The median age of recruited patients was 64 years of age, 43% had limited disease, and 57% had extensive disease. There were 758 deaths and 787 PFS events. No benefit was found for pravastatin, either in all patients or in several subgroups. For pravastatin versus placebo, the 2-year OS rate was 13.2% (95% CI, 10.0 to 16.7) versus 14.1% (95% CI, 10.9 to 17.7), respectively, with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P = .90. The median OS was 10.7 months v 10.6 months, respectively. The median PFS was 7.7 months v 7.3 months, respectively. The median OS (pravastatin v placebo) was 14.6 months in both groups for limited disease and 9.1 months versus 8.8 months, respectively, for extensive disease. Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusion Pravastatin 40 mg combined with standard SCLC therapy, although safe, does not benefit patients. Our conclusions are the same as those found in all four much smaller, randomized, placebo-controlled trials specifically designed to evaluate statin therapy in patients with cancer.

Randomized Prospective Biomarker Trial of ERCC1 for Comparing Platinum and Nonplatinum Therapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: ERCC1 Trial (ET).

Purpose Retrospective studies indicate that expression of excision repair cross complementing group 1 (ERCC1) protein is associated with platinum resistance and survival in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted the first randomized trial, to our knowledge, to evaluate ERCC1 prospectively and to assess the superiority of nonplatinum therapy over platinum doublet therapy for ERCC1-positive NSCLC as well as noninferiority for ERCC1-negative NSCLC. Patients and Methods This trial had a marker-by-treatment interaction phase III design, with ERCC1 (8F1 antibody) status as a randomization stratification factor. Chemonaïve patients with NSCLC (stage IIIB and IV) were eligible. Patients with squamous histology were randomly assigned to cisplatin and gemcitabine or paclitaxel and gemcitabine; nonsquamous patients received cisplatin and pemetrexed or paclitaxel and pemetrexed. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). We also evaluated an antibody specific for XPF (clone 3F2). The target hazard ratio (HR) for patients with ERCC1-positive NSCLC was ≤ 0.78. Results Of patients, 648 were recruited (177 squamous, 471 nonsquamous). ERCC1-positive rates were 54.5% and 76.7% in nonsquamous and squamous patients, respectively, and the corresponding XPF-positive rates were 70.5% and 68.5%. Accrual stopped early in 2012 for squamous patients because OS for nonplatinum therapy was inferior to platinum therapy (median OS, 7.6 months [paclitaxel and gemcitabine] v 10.7 months [cisplatin and gemcitabine]; HR, 1.46; P = .02). Accrual for nonsquamous patients halted in 2013. Median OS was 8.0 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 9.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-positive patients (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.44), and 10.3 (paclitaxel and pemetrexed) versus 11.6 (cisplatin and pemetrexed) months for ERCC1-negative patients (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.33; interaction P = .64). OS HR was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44) for XPF-positive patients, and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.90 to 2.15) for XPF-negative patients (interaction P = .35). Neither ERCC1 nor XPF were prognostic: among nonsquamous patients, OS HRs for positive versus negative were ERCC1, 1.11 ( P = .32), and XPF, 1.08 ( P = .55). Conclusion Superior outcomes were observed for patients with squamous histology who received platinum therapy compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy; however, selecting chemotherapy by using commercially available ERCC1 or XPF antibodies did not confer any extra survival benefit.

IDEAL-CRT: A Phase 1/2 Trial of Isotoxic Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy in Patients With Stage II/III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report toxicity and early survival data for IDEAL-CRT, a trial of dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-small cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received tumor doses of 63 to 73 Gy in 30 once-daily fractions over 6 weeks with 2 concurrent cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. They were assigned to 1 of 2 groups according to esophageal dose. In group 1, tumor doses were determined by an experimental constraint on maximum esophageal dose, which was escalated following a 6 + 6 design from 65 Gy through 68 Gy to 71 Gy, allowing an esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be determined from early and late toxicities. Tumor doses for group 2 patients were determined by other tissue constraints, often lung. Overall survival, progression-free survival, tumor response, and toxicity were evaluated for both groups combined. RESULTS: Eight centers recruited 84 patients: 13, 12, and 10, respectively, in the 65-Gy, 68-Gy, and 71-Gy cohorts of group 1; and 49 in group 2. The mean prescribed tumor dose was 67.7 Gy. Five grade 3 esophagitis and 3 grade 3 pneumonitis events were observed across both groups. After 1 fatal esophageal perforation in the 71-Gy cohort, 68 Gy was declared the esophageal maximum tolerated dose. With a median follow-up of 35 months, median overall survival was 36.9 months, and overall survival and progression-free survival were 87.8% and 72.0%, respectively, at 1 year and 68.0% and 48.5% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: IDEAL-CRT achieved significant treatment intensification with acceptable toxicity and promising survival. The isotoxic design allowed the esophageal maximum tolerated dose to be identified from relatively few patients.

Randomized trial of erlotinib plus whole-brain radiotherapy for NSCLC patients with multiple brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Median survival of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases is poor. We examined concurrent erlotinib and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) followed by maintenance erlotinib in patients with untreated brain metastases, given the potential radiosensitizing properties of erlotinib and its direct effect on brain metastases and systemic activity. METHODS: Eighty NSCLC patients with KPS of 70 and greater and multiple brain metastases were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 40) or erlotinib (100mg, n = 40) given concurrently with WBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions). Following WBRT, patients continued with placebo or erlotinib (150 mg) until disease progression. The primary end point was neurological progression-free survival (nPFS); hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression. All P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (37.5%) from each arm were alive and without neurological progression 2 months after WBRT. Median nPFS was 1.6 months in both arms; nPFS HR 0.95 (95% CI = 0.59 to 1.54; P = .84). Median overall survival (OS) was 2.9 and 3.4 months in the placebo and erlotinib arms; HR 0.95 (95% CI = 0.58 to 1.55; P = .83). The frequency of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations was low with only 1 of 35 (2.9%) patients with available samples had activating EGFR-mutations. Grade 3/4 adverse event rates were similar between the two groups (70.0% in each arm), except for rash 20.0% (erlotinib) vs 5.0% (placebo), and fatigue 17.5% vs 35.0%. No statistically significant quality of life differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed no advantage in nPFS or OS for concurrent erlotinib and WBRT followed by maintenance erlotinib in patients with predominantly EGFR wild-type NSCLC and multiple brain metastases compared to placebo. Future studies should focus on the role of erlotinib with or without WBRT in patients with EGFR mutations.

Tracking genomic cancer evolution for precision medicine: the lung TRACERx study.

The importance of intratumour genetic and functional heterogeneity is increasingly recognised as a driver of cancer progression and survival outcome. Understanding how tumour clonal heterogeneity impacts upon therapeutic outcome, however, is still an area of unmet clinical and scientific need. TRACERx (TRAcking non-small cell lung Cancer Evolution through therapy [Rx]), a prospective study of patients with primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), aims to define the evolutionary trajectories of lung cancer in both space and time through multiregion and longitudinal tumour sampling and genetic analysis. By following cancers from diagnosis to relapse, tracking the evolutionary trajectories of tumours in relation to therapeutic interventions, and determining the impact of clonal heterogeneity on clinical outcomes, TRACERx may help to identify novel therapeutic targets for NSCLC and may also serve as a model applicable to other cancer types.

First-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy (TOPICAL): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive only active supportive care because of poor performance status or presence of several comorbidities. We investigated whether erlotinib improves clinical outcome in these patients. METHODS: TOPICAL was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done at 78 centres in the UK. Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed NSCLC; stage IIIb or IV; chemotherapy naive; no symptomatic brain metastases; deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy because of poor (≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or presence of several comorbidities, or both; and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (by phone call, in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by disease stage, performance status, smoking history, and centre, block size 10) to receive oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, and prespecified subgroup analyses included development of a rash due to erlotinib within 28 days of starting treatment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 77383050. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2005, and April 1, 2009, we randomly assigned 350 patients to receive erlotinib and 320 to receive placebo. We followed up patients until March 31, 2011. 657 patients died; median overall survival did not differ between groups (erlotinib, 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·2-4·2, vs placebo, 3·6 months, 3·2-3·9; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·10, p=0·46). 59% (178 of 302) of patients assigned erlotinib and who were assessable at 1 month developed first-cycle rash, which was the only independent factor associated with overall survival. Patients with first-cycle rash had better overall survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·63-0·92, p=0·0058), compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, overall survival seemed to be worse in the group that did not develop first-cycle rash (1·30, 1·05-1·61, p=0·017). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was more common with erlotinib than placebo (8% [28 of 334] vs 1% [four of 313], p=0·0001), as was high-grade rash (23% [79 of 334] vs 2% [five of 313], p<0·0001); other adverse events were much the same between groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients with NSCLC who are deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy could be given erlotinib. Patients who develop a first-cycle rash should continue to receive erlotinib, whereas those who do not have a rash after 28 days should discontinue erlotinib, because of the possibility of decreased survival. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Roche.