Entrectinib in ROS1-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2/3 BFAST trial.

Although comprehensive biomarker testing is recommended for all patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before initiation of first-line treatment, tissue availability can limit testing. Genomic testing in liquid biopsies can be utilized to overcome the inherent limitations of tissue sampling and identify the most appropriate biomarker-informed treatment option for patients. The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is a global, open-label, multicohort trial that evaluates the efficacy and safety of multiple therapies in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and targetable alterations identified by liquid biopsy. We present data from Cohort D (ROS1-positive). Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IIIB/IV, ROS1-positive NSCLC detected by liquid biopsies received entrectinib 600 mg daily. At data cutoff (November 2021), 55 patients were enrolled and 54 had measurable disease. Cohort D met its primary endpoint: the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator was 81.5%, which was consistent with the ORR from the integrated analysis of entrectinib (investigator-assessed ORR, 73.4%; data cutoff May 2019, ≥12 months of follow-up). The safety profile of entrectinib was consistent with previous reports. These results demonstrate consistency with those from the integrated analysis of entrectinib in patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC identified by tissue-based testing, and support the clinical value of liquid biopsies to inform clinical decision-making. The integration of liquid biopsies into clinical practice provides patients with a less invasive diagnostic method than tissue-based testing and has faster turnaround times that may expedite the reaching of clinical decisions in the advanced/metastatic NSCLC setting. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03178552 .

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases.

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib. Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX. Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16-0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX. Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting.

Concordance Between Tissue ALK Detection by Immunohistochemistry and Plasma ALK Detection by Next-Generation Sequencing in the Randomized Phase 3 ALEX Study in Patients With Treatment-Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC.

Introduction: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial revealed the clinical applicability of blood-based next-generation sequencing to identify patients with ALK-positive NSCLC for alectinib treatment. To understand the relationship between tissue-based versus blood-based testing, we retrospectively investigated concordance between VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx immunohistochemistry and the FoundationACT (FACT; Foundation Medicine, Inc.) plasma assay, and compared clinical efficacy between phase 3 ALEX study subpopulations. Methods: Patients with advanced ALK-positive (by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg, twice daily. Assessable baseline plasma samples were analyzed for ALK positivity by FACT; positive percent agreement with immunohistochemistry was evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and objective response rate were compared between intention-to-treat (ITT) and biomarker-evaluable populations, and plasma ALK-positive and plasma ALK-negative subpopulations. Results: In the ITT population (303 patients; alectinib, 152; crizotinib, 151), all patients had ALK-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. In the biomarker-evaluable population (149 patients; alectinib, 76; crizotinib, 73), 105 had plasma ALK-positive and 44 had plasma ALK-negative tumors. Positive percent agreement between immunohistochemistry and FACT was 70.5% (105 of 149; 95% confidence interval: 62.5-77.7). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, with some exceptions, notably tumor burden. Median PFS in plasma ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients was 22.4 months and not estimable with alectinib and 7.3 months and 12.9 months with crizotinib, respectively; median duration of response was 25.9 months and not estimable with alectinib and 5.6 months and 11.5 months with crizotinib, respectively. Conclusions: Reasonable concordance between FACT and immunohistochemistry was observed; both methods are valuable in identifying ALK-positive patients, separately or concurrently. Alectinib was found to have superior PFS in the plasma ALK-positive population, as in the ITT population.

Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (a monoclonal antibody against PD-L1), which restores anticancer immunity, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer and also showed clinical benefit when combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. IMpower130 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: IMpower130 was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 131 centres across eight countries (the USA, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and received no previous chemotherapy for stage IV disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1; permuted block [block size of six] with an interactive voice or web response system) to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min every 3 weeks] plus nab-paclitaxel [100 mg/m2 intravenously every week]) or chemotherapy alone for four or six 21-day cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Stratification factors were sex, baseline liver metastases, and PD-L1 tumour expression. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat wild-type (ie, EGFRwt and ALKwt) population. The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02367781. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2015, and Feb 13, 2017, 724 patients were randomly assigned and 723 were included in the intention-to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the intention-to-treat population) of the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group (483 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 451 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population) or the chemotherapy group (240 patients in the intention-to-treat population and 228 patients in the intention-to-treat wild-type population). Median follow-up in the intention-to-treat wild-type population was similar between groups (18·5 months [IQR 15·2-23·6] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 19·2 months [15·4-23·0] in the chemotherapy group). In the intention-to-treat wild-type population, there were significant improvements in median overall survival (18·6 months [95% CI 16·0-21·2] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 13·9 months [12·0-18·7] in the chemotherapy group; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·98]; p=0·033) and median progression-free survival (7·0 months [95% CI 6·2-7·3] in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 5·5 months [4·4-5·9] in the chemotherapy group; stratified HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·54-0·77]; p<0·0001]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (152 [32%] of 473 in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group vs 65 [28%] of 232 in the chemotherapy group), anaemia (138 [29%] vs 47 [20%]), and decreased neutrophil count (57 [12%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 112 (24%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 30 (13%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related (any treatment) deaths occurred in eight (2%) of 473 patients in the atezolizumab plus chemotherapy group and one (<1%) of 232 patients in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: IMpower130 showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival and a significant improvement in progression-free survival with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and no ALK or EGFR mutations. No new safety signals were identified. This study supports the benefit of atezolizumab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

Tumor volume measurement error using computed tomography imaging in a phase II clinical trial in lung cancer.

To address the error introduced by computed tomography (CT) scanners when assessing volume and unidimensional measurement of solid tumors, we scanned a precision manufactured pocket phantom simultaneously with patients enrolled in a lung cancer clinical trial. Dedicated software quantified bias and random error in the [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] dimensions of a Teflon sphere and also quantified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors and volume measurements using both constant and adaptive thresholding. We found that underestimation bias was essentially the same for [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] dimensions using constant thresholding and had similar values for adaptive thresholding. The random error of these length measurements as measured by the standard deviation and coefficient of variation was 0.10 mm (0.65), 0.11 mm (0.71), and 0.59 mm (3.75) for constant thresholding and 0.08 mm (0.51), 0.09 mm (0.56), and 0.58 mm (3.68) for adaptive thresholding, respectively. For random error, however, [Formula: see text] lengths had at least a fivefold higher standard deviation and coefficient of variation than [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. Observed [Formula: see text]-dimension error was especially high for some 8 and 16 slice CT models. Error in CT image formation, in particular, for models with low numbers of detector rows, may be large enough to be misinterpreted as representing either treatment response or disease progression.

Clinical genotyping and efficacy outcomes: exploratory biomarker data from the phase II ABIGAIL study of first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: ABIGAIL, a phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the correlation between biomarkers and best overall response (BOR) to bevacizumab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Exploratory analyses of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) clinical genotyping data are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 303 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg or 15mg/kg until progression or unacceptable toxicity (plus six cycles of chemotherapy). Patients provided blood samples for biomarker analysis. Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess whether genetic variants in VEGF-A or VEGFR-1/-2 act as efficacy or safety biomarkers. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were determined using individual genotyping assays. DNA analysis for 12 SNPs across three genes is reported: VEGF-A (five SNPs), VEGFR-1 (three SNPs), and VEGFR-2 (four SNPs). RESULTS VEGF-A: c.+405/c.-634 (CG), VEGF-A: c.-460 >C; c-1498 >C (CT), and VEGF-A: c.-2578 C>A were associated with >50% higher odds of responding to treatment. VEGFR-1: rs9554316 (GT) was associated with >30% higher risk of progression and >40% higher risk of death. VEGF-A: c.+936 C>T was associated with higher incidence of hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Four genetic variants of VEGF-A and VEGFR-1 were associated with bevacizumab treatment outcome. Three variants in VEGF-A were associated with increased BOR, one variant in VEGFR-1 was associated with worse progression-free survival/overall survival. These associations were not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing. No genetic variant was associated with significantly higher risk of hypertension. Replication in additional studies may provide insight into the use of these variants to predict response to bevacizumab.

A correlative biomarker analysis of the combination of bevacizumab and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the phase II randomized ABIGAIL study (BO21015).

INTRODUCTION: Avastin Biomarkers In lunG And 3D Innovative anaLysis (ABIGAIL), which is a phase II, open-label, randomized study, investigated correlations between biomarkers and best overall response to bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg, 3-weekly until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity) plus carboplatin/gemcitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel (maximum six cycles). Plasma samples (baseline/throughout treatment) were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A (baseline only), VEGF receptors (VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2), basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and placental growth factor (baseline only). Tumor samples (primary specimen) were analyzed for VEGF-A, VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2, neuropilin (NRP), and CD31. Response was evaluated at baseline and every 6 weeks (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). RESULTS: Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus 7.5 mg/kg (n =154) or 15 mg/kg (n =149) bevacizumab. For the primary analysis, none of the baseline plasma biomarkers correlated with best overall response. Exploratory analyses showed that low VEGF-A levels were associated with longer progression-free survival (7.4 versus 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence intervals, 1.17 to 2.09; p = 0.002) and overall survival (19.8 versus 11.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.13; p = 0.004) compared with these in high baseline plasma VEGF-A levels. No plasma biomarkers changed significantly over time. No significant correlations were observed between tumor biomarkers and clinical outcomes. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Baseline and/or dynamic changes in plasma basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, placental growth factor, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2, and tumor biomarkers did not correlate statistically with treatment outcomes for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Only baseline plasma VEGF-A was significantly correlated with progression-free survival/overall survival.

Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: AVAil.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, improves survival when combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This randomized phase III trial investigated the efficacy and safety of cisplatin/gemcitabine (CG) plus bevacizumab in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 80 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) for up to six cycles plus low-dose bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg), high-dose bevacizumab (15 mg/kg), or placebo every 3 weeks until disease progression. The trial was not powered to compare the two doses directly. The primary end point was amended from overall survival (OS) to progression-free survival (PFS). Between February 2005 and August 2006, 1,043 patients were randomly assigned (placebo, n = 347; low dose, n = 345; high dose, n = 351). RESULTS: PFS was significantly prolonged; the hazard ratios for PFS were 0.75 (median PFS, 6.7 v 6.1 months for placebo; P = .003) in the low-dose group and 0.82 (median PFS, 6.5 v 6.1 months for placebo; P = .03) in the high-dose group compared with placebo. Objective response rates were 20.1%, 34.1%, and 30.4% for placebo, low-dose bevacizumab, and high-dose bevacizumab plus CG, respectively. Duration of follow-up was not sufficient for OS analysis. Incidence of grade 3 or greater adverse events was similar across arms. Grade > or = 3 pulmonary hemorrhage rates were < or = 1.5% for all arms despite 9% of patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Combining bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg) with CG significantly improved PFS and objective response rate. Bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy offers clinical benefit for bevacizumab-eligible patients with advanced NSCLC.

Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer).

BACKGROUND: This placebo-controlled phase III study investigated the effect on survival of gefitinib as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned in a ratio of two to one either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival in the overall population of patients and those with adenocarcinoma. The primary analysis of the population for survival was by intention to treat. This study has been submitted for registration with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 1839IL/709. FINDINGS: 1129 patients were assigned gefitinib and 563 placebo. At median follow-up of 7.2 months, median survival did not differ significantly between the groups in the overall population (5.6 months for gefitinib and 5.1 months for placebo; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.02], p=0.087) or among the 812 patients with adenocarcinoma (6.3 months vs 5.4 months; 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p=0.089). Preplanned subgroup analyses showed significantly longer survival in the gefitinib group than the placebo group for never-smokers (n=375; 0.67 [0.49-0.92], p=0.012; median survival 8.9 vs 6.1 months) and patients of Asian origin (n=342; 0.66 [0.48-0.91], p=0.01; median survival 9.5 vs 5.5 months). Gefitinib was well tolerated, as in previous studies. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with gefitinib was not associated with significant improvement in survival in either coprimary population. There was pronounced heterogeneity in survival outcomes between groups of patients, with some evidence of benefit among never-smokers and patients of Asian origin.

A retrospective evaluation of the feasibility of intrapatient dose escalation as appropriate methodology for dose-ranging studies for combination cytotoxic regimens.

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of intrapatient dose-escalation methodology for dose-ranging studies of conventional cytotoxics in combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Case records were identified for patients with ovarian cancer treated first-line with either single-agent carboplatin or carboplatin and paclitaxel in combination and routinely subjected to a 10% dose escalation in carboplatin at each cycle, towards a target day-22 neutrophil count in the range 1.0-1.5x10(9)/l and a platelet count in the range 75-110x10(9)/l, defining adequate dose. 'Entry level' carboplatin doses were in the range AUC 5.1 to AUC 7.4; paclitaxel was given at 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-h infusion throughout. All drugs were administered three-weekly. RESULTS: The distribution of carboplatin maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) indicated a wide interpatient variation, ranging from AUC 5.4 to AUC 9.8. The median MTD in those receiving carboplatin alone (AUC 6.9) was significantly lower than in those treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel (AUC 7.6) ( P=0.01). Also, paclitaxel had both neutrophil- and platelet-protective effects. CONCLUSIONS: The median MTD documented here using intrapatient dose escalation for carboplatin combined with paclitaxel is remarkably similar to that derived from conventional phase I studies. Furthermore, the striking range of carboplatin MTDs recorded in previously untreated patients may have implications for the wider development of management strategies based on the adequacy of treatment, as defined by the modest levels of dose-limiting toxicity encountered. The ready availability of an expanded set of MTD data by this methodology may also provide more compelling evidence about potential pharmacodynamic drug interactions than may be available from conventional phase I combination studies. These retrospective findings clearly justify further prospective evaluation of intrapatient dose-escalation methodology in dose-ranging studies.