Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results.

PURPOSE: Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses. RESULTS: In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02. CONCLUSION: The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

A phase 2 study of first-line nivolumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (CSCC) is among the most frequent malignancies worldwide. For those not amenable to treatment with curative intent, immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) with anti-programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) antibodies has emerged as a novel therapeutic option. In this study, the authors sought to investigate the activity of the anti-PD-1 agent nivolumab in patients with advanced CSCC (aCSCC). METHODS: CA209-9JC was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and/or efficacy of nivolumab in systemic treatment-naive patients with aCSCC. Nivolumab (3 mg/kg) was administered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or 12 months of treatment. The primary end point was the best objective response rate (BORR) as per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Secondary end points included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with aCSCC were enrolled with a median age of 74 years (range, 48-93). Among the 24 patients evaluable for response, the BORR was 58.3% (14/24); there were no complete responses. With a median follow-up of 17.6 months, median duration of response has not been reached, and the estimated median PFS and OS were 12.7 and 20.7 months, respectively. Prior exposure to radiotherapy was associated with worse outcomes (p = .035, univariate analysis). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade and grade ≥ 3 occurred in 21 (87.5%) and six (25%) patients, respectively, and one patient discontinued nivolumab due to toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab resulted in robust antitumor activity, sustained responses, and good tolerability in systemic treatment-naive patients with aCSCC. These data provide further evidence to support the use of ICI as the standard treatment of aCSCC.

Correlation between work productivity loss and EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 domains from the MONALEESA-7 trial of premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The phase III MONALEESA-7 trial (NCT02278120) assessed ribociclib + endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET in premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). The relationship between work productivity loss (WPL) and domains of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the breast cancer (BC)-specific module (QLQ-BR23) has not been explored in ABC. In this post hoc analysis (data cutoff, November 30, 2018), we assessed the correlation between the WPL component of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: General Health (WPAI:GH) questionnaire and EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23 domains. METHODS: We analyzed EORTC and WPAI:GH data from 329 patients in both treatment arms of MONALEESA-7 who were employed during the trial. Separate univariable mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) regression models were fitted for each domain, with WPL as dependent variable and each EORTC domain score as a single fixed-effect covariate. Linear and quadratic relationships were considered based on the Akaike information criterion. Next, two separate multivariable MMRM regression models were fitted with WPL a dependent variable and all QLQ-C30/BR23 domain scores as fixed-effect covariates. The strength of correlation between WPL and EORTC domains was assessed in terms of minimally important differences for the QLQ-C30/BR23 modules. RESULTS: Our univariable analysis showed that greater WPL was statistically significantly associated with lower levels of overall quality of life (QoL) and other functional domains and with higher levels of all symptomatic domains of the QLQ-C30/BR23 modules. Our multivariable analysis determined that this correlation was primarily driven by changes in QoL; physical, role, social, and future perspective domains; and BC-specific symptomatic domains. CONCLUSION: This analysis determined the QoL domains that correlate with WPL in premenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. These results may inform prognostic tools to identify and characterize patients with greater risk for WPL and help design interventional strategies to minimize WPL.

Updated Overall Survival of Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy versus Endocrine Therapy Alone in Pre- and Perimenopausal Patients with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer in MONALEESA-7: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) benefit in the phase III MONALEESA-7 trial of pre-/perimenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). The median OS was not reached in the ribociclib arm in the protocol-specified final analysis; we hence performed an exploratory OS and additional outcomes analysis with an extended follow-up (median, 53.5 months). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive ET [goserelin plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) or tamoxifen] with ribociclib or placebo. OS was evaluated with a stratified Cox proportional hazard model and summarized with Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 672 patients. Median OS was 58.7 months with ribociclib versus 48.0 months with placebo [hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61-0.96]. Kaplan-Meier estimated OS at 48 months was 60% and 50% with ribociclib and placebo, respectively. Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the OS benefit, including patients who received NSAI and patients aged less than 40 years. Subsequent antineoplastic therapies following discontinuation were balanced between the ribociclib (77%) and placebo (78%) groups. Use of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors after discontinuation was higher with placebo (26%) versus ribociclib (13%). Time to first chemotherapy was significantly delayed with ribociclib versus placebo. No drug-drug interactions were observed between ribociclib and either NSAI. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus ET continued to show significantly longer OS than ET alone in pre-/perimenopausal patients, including patients aged less than 40 years, with HR+/HER2- ABC with 53.5 months of median follow-up (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278120).

Apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus placebo plus abiraterone and prednisone in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (ACIS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC. METHODS: ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone-prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736. FINDINGS: 982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone; 490 to abiraterone-prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0-28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4-27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3) in the abiraterone-prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58-0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5-58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7-27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone-prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone-prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone-prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

A phase 2 randomized clinical trial of abiraterone plus ADT, apalutamide, or abiraterone and apalutamide in patients with advanced prostate cancer with non-castrate testosterone levels (LACOG 0415).

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with apalutamide, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel are the standard treatments for advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). We investigated ADT-free alternatives for advanced CSPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LACOG 0415 is a phase 2, open-label, non-comparative, randomized trial. Patients with advanced CSPC were randomized (1:1:1) to receive goserelin plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (ADT plus AAP arm), apalutamide (APA arm), or apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (APA plus AAP arm). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were performed in all patients with at least one dose of the study drug. RESULTS: Of 128 randomized patients, 120 patients were evaluable for PSA response at week 25; 17.2% had a high-risk biochemical recurrence, 8.6% had locally advanced disease, and 74.2% had distant metastases. At week 25, PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL was observed in 75.6% (95%CI 59.7%-87.6%), 60.0% (95%CI 43.3%-75.1%), and 79.5% (95%CI 63.5%-90.7%) of patients in ADT plus AAP, APA, and APA plus AAP arms, respectively. PSA decline of ≥80% was observed in 100%, 90.0%, and 97.4%, respectively. Grade 3-4 AEs were observed in 31.0%, 21.4% and 36.4%, respectively. Testosterone levels increased significantly in the APA arm and decreased significantly in ADT plus AAP and APA plus AAP arms. CONCLUSIONS: ADT-free alternatives provide a high PSA response in advanced CSPC, although the APA arm did not reach the expected rate of PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25. These results warrant further investigation of ADT-free treatments as alternatives in advanced CSPC. SOURCE STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT02867020.

Genomic Profiling of Premenopausal HR+ and HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer by Circulating Tumor DNA and Association of Genetic Alterations With Therapeutic Response to Endocrine Therapy and Ribociclib.

PURPOSE: This analysis evaluated the genomic landscape of premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer and the association of genetic alterations with response to ribociclib in the phase III MONALEESA-7 trial. METHODS: Premenopausal patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive endocrine therapy plus ribociclib or placebo. Plasma collected at baseline was sequenced using targeted next-generation sequencing for approximately 600 relevant cancer genes. The association of circulating tumor DNA alterations with progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated to identify biomarkers of response and resistance to ribociclib. RESULTS: Baseline circulating tumor DNA was sequenced in 565 patients; 489 had evidence of ≥ 1 alteration. The most frequent alterations included PIK3CA (28%), TP53 (19%), CCND1 (10%), MYC (8%), GATA3 (8%), receptor tyrosine kinases (17%), and the Chr8p11.23 locus (12%). A treatment benefit of ribociclib was seen with wild-type (hazard ratio [HR] 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.62]) and altered (HR 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.9]) PIK3CA. Overall, patients with altered CCND1 had shorter PFS regardless of treatment, suggesting CCND1 as a potential prognostic biomarker. Benefit with ribociclib was seen in patients with altered (HR 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.54]) or wild-type (HR 0.52 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.68]) CCND1, but greater benefit was observed with altered, suggesting predictive potential of CCND1. Alterations in TP53, MYC, Chr8p11.23 locus, and receptor tyrosine kinases were associated with worse PFS, but ribociclib benefit was independent of alteration status. CONCLUSION: In this study-to our knowledge, the first large study of premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer-multiple genomic alterations were associated with poor outcome. A PFS benefit of ribociclib was observed regardless of gene alteration status, although in this exploratory analysis, a magnitude of benefits varied by alteration.

Real-World Molecular Testing and Treatment Patterns in Brazilian Patients with Newly Diagnosed Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the molecular testing and treatment patterns in a retrospective cohort of newly diagnosed treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This is an observational retrospective cohort study conducted across 10 cancer centers in Brazil. Treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were enrolled from January to December 2014. The following data were collected from the medical records of patients from diagnosis until the last record (death, loss to follow-up, or the end of the maximum follow-up period): demographics; medical history; smoking status; disease characteristics; previous treatments; and molecular testing patterns and results. The overall survival (OS) was also estimated. RESULTS: A total of 391 patients from 8 different Brazilian states were included, with a median age of 64.1 years (23.7-98.7), with most patients being males (60.1%). The smoking status of 74.2% of patients was a 'former' or 'current smoker'. Stage IV NSCLC at diagnosis was observed in 82.4% of patients, with 269 of them (68.8%) presenting adenocarcinoma (ADC). Among the stage IV ADC patients, 54.0% were referred for molecular testing. Among the patients with an available epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status, 31 (24.0%) were EGFR-positive. The first-line treatment was a platinum-based chemotherapy for 98 patients (25.1%), while non-platinum-based regimens were used in 54 patients (13.8%). OS data were available for 370 patients, with a median OS of 10.8 months. Never smokers had a significantly higher median OS versus current or former smokers (14.6 versus 9.1 months; log-rank p=0.003). Among the patients for whom molecular testing data were available, those with EGFR-positive results had a longer median OS (34.6 versus 12.8 months; log-rank p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide relevant information for prescribers and policy decision-makers by highlighting the unmet needs of patients and the importance of molecular testing in newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. We also highlight the respective EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment when the result is positive and the areas in which further efforts are required to grant access to effective treatment.

Health-related quality of life in premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer treated with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy: results from a phase III randomized clinical trial (MONALEESA-7).

BACKGROUND: This analysis evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the phase III MONALEESA-7 trial, which previously demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with ribociclib (cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor) + endocrine therapy (ET) compared with placebo + ET in pre- and perimenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). METHODS: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life questionnaire C30 (QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-5L were used to evaluate HRQoL. RESULTS: EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments were evaluable for 335 patients in the ribociclib arm and 337 patients in the placebo arm. Adherence rates at baseline and ⩾1 postbaseline time point were 90% and 83%, respectively. Patients treated with ribociclib + ET had a longer time to deterioration (TTD) ⩾ 10% in global HRQoL {hazard ratio (HR), 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.86]}. TTD ⩾ 10% in global HRQoL was delayed in ribociclib-treated patients without versus with disease progression [HR, 0.31 (95% CI, 0.21-0.48)]. TTD ⩾ 10% in pain was longer with ribociclib + ET than with placebo + ET [HR, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.45-0.92)]. Patients who received a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor experienced similar benefits with ribociclib versus placebo in global HRQoL and pain. CONCLUSION: HRQoL was maintained longer in patients who received ribociclib + ET versus placebo + ET. These data, combined with previously reported improvements in PFS and OS, support a strong clinical benefit-to-risk ratio with ribociclib-based treatment in pre- and perimenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC.

Final Analysis of the Ipilimumab Versus Placebo Following Radiotherapy Phase III Trial in Postdocetaxel Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Identifies an Excess of Long-term Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial CA184-043 evaluated radiotherapy to bone metastases followed by Ipilimumab or placebo in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel previously. In a prior analysis, the trial's primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not improved significantly. OBJECTIVE: To report the final analysis of OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 799 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy to one or more bone metastases followed by either Ipilimumab (n = 399) or placebo (n = 400). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified and exploratory subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During an additional follow-up of approximately 2.4 yr since the primary analysis, 721/799 patients have died. Survival analysis showed crossing of the curves at 7-8 mo, followed by persistent separation of the curves beyond that point, favoring the ipilimumab arm. Given the lack of proportional hazards, a piecewise hazard model showed that the hazard ratio (HR) changed over time: the HR was 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 1.99) for 0-5 mo, 0.66 (0.51, 0.86) for 5-12 mo, and 0.66 (0.52, 0.84) beyond 12 mo. OS rates were higher in the ipilimumab versus placebo arms at 2 yr (25.2% vs 16.6%), 3 yr (15.3% vs 7.9%), 4 yr (10.1% vs 3.3%), and 5 yr (7.9% vs. 2.7%). Disease progression was the most frequent cause of death in both arms. In seven patients (1.8%) in the ipilimumab arm and one (0.3%) in the placebo arm, the primary cause of death was reported as study drug toxicity. No long-term safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this preplanned long-term analysis, OS favored ipilimumab plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus radiotherapy for patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. OS rates at 3, 4, and 5 yr were approximately two to three times higher in the ipilimumab arm. PATIENT SUMMARY: After longer follow-up, survival favored the group of men who received ipilimumab, with overall survival rates being two to three times higher at 3 yr and beyond.

Real-world molecular testing and treatment patterns in brazilian patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the molecular testing and treatment patterns in a retrospective cohort of newly diagnosed treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: This is an observational retrospective cohort study conducted across 10 cancer centers in Brazil. Treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were enrolled from January to December 2014. The following data were collected from the medical records of patients from diagnosis until the last record (death, loss to follow-up, or the end of the maximum follow-up period): demographics; medical history; smoking status; disease characteristics; previous treatments; and molecular testing patterns and results. The overall survival (OS) was also estimated. Results: A total of 391 patients from 8 different Brazilian states were included, with a median age of 64.1 years (23.7-98.7), with most patients being males (60.1%). The smoking status of 74.2% of patients was a 'former' or 'current smoker'. Stage IV NSCLC at diagnosis was observed in 82.4% of patients, with 269 of them (68.8%) presenting adenocarcinoma (ADC). Among the stage IV ADC patients, 54.0% were referred for molecular testing. Among the patients with an available epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status, 31 (24.0%) were EGFR-positive. The first-line treatment was a platinum-based chemotherapy for 98 patients (25.1%), while non-platinum-based regimens were used in 54 patients (13.8%). OS data were available for 370 patients, with a median OS of 10.8 months. Never smokers had a significantly higher median OS versus current or former smokers (14.6 versus 9.1 months; log-rank p=0.003). Among the patients for whom molecular testing data were available, those with EGFR-positive results had a longer median OS (34.6 versus 12.8 months; log-rank p=0.003). Conclusion: Our findings provide relevant information for prescribers and policy decision-makers by highlighting the unmet needs of patients and the importance of molecular testing in newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. We also highlight the respective EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment when the result is positive and the areas in which further efforts are required to grant access to effective treatment.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with high tumour mutational burden: patient-reported outcomes results from the randomised, open-label, phase III CheckMate 227 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CheckMate 227 study, first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (co-primary end-point) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high tumour mutational burden (TMB; ≥10 mutations/megabase). AIM: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this population. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using the validated PRO questionnaires Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D, respectively. LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) and three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) scores and changes from baseline were analysed descriptively. Longitudinal changes were assessed by mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRMs) and time to first deterioration/improvement analyses. RESULTS: In the high TMB population, PRO questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% at baseline and >80% for most on-treatment assessments. During treatment, mean changes from baseline with nivolumab + ipilimumab showed early, clinically meaningful improvements in LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D VAS/UI; with chemotherapy, symptoms and health-related quality of life remained stable (LCSS ASBI/3-IGI, EQ-5D UI) or improved following induction (EQ-5D VAS). MMRM-assessed changes in symptom burden were improved with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. Symptom deterioration by week 12 was lower with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (22.3% versus 35.0%; absolute risk reduction: 12.7% [95% confidence interval 2.4-22.5]), irrespective of discontinuation. Time to first deterioration was delayed with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS and EQ-5D summary measures. CONCLUSION: First-line nivolumab + ipilimumab demonstrated early, sustained improvements in PROs versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high TMB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02477826.

Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: An earlier analysis of this phase 3 trial showed that the addition of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor to endocrine therapy provided a greater benefit with regard to progression-free survival than endocrine therapy alone in premenopausal or perimenopausal patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. Here we report the results of a protocol-specified interim analysis of the key secondary end point of overall survival. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive either ribociclib or placebo in addition to endocrine therapy (goserelin and either a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen). Overall survival was evaluated with the use of a stratified log-rank test and summarized with the use of Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: A total of 672 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. There were 83 deaths among 335 patients (24.8%) in the ribociclib group and 109 deaths among 337 patients (32.3%) in the placebo group. The addition of ribociclib to endocrine therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than endocrine therapy alone. The estimated overall survival at 42 months was 70.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.5 to 76.0) in the ribociclib group and 46.0% (95% CI, 32.0 to 58.9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.95; P = 0.00973 by log-rank test). The survival benefit seen in the subgroup of 495 patients who received an aromatase inhibitor was consistent with that in the overall intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.98). The percentage of patients who received subsequent antineoplastic therapy was balanced between the groups (68.9% in the ribociclib group and 73.2% in the placebo group). The time from randomization to disease progression during receipt of second-line therapy or to death was also longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed significantly longer overall survival with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy than with endocrine therapy alone among patients with advanced hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. No new concerns regarding toxic effects emerged with longer follow-up. (Funded by Novartis; MONALEESA-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278120.).

Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: BEVZ92 is a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab. The two molecules have similar physicochemical and functional properties in in-vitro and preclinical studies. In this clinical study, we compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BEVZ92 with reference bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label trial at 15 centres in Argentina, Brazil, India, Spain, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic colorectal cancer with at least one measurable non-irradiated lesion for which first-line chemotherapy was indicated and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, had not received previous treatment for advanced disease, and whose bone marrow, hepatic, renal, and coagulation markers were all within normal ranges. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either BEVZ92 or reference bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 2 weeks) in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Randomisation was done via a web service based on a stochastic minimisation algorithm and was stratified by chemotherapy regimen (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI), previous adjuvant therapy (yes vs no), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and study site. The primary endpoint was the area under the concentration-versus-time curve after a single infusion (AUC0-336h) and at steady state (AUCss)-ie, at cycle 7-in the assessable population, which comprised all treated patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available during the first seven cycles. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80-125%. Secondary endpoints included objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and immunogenicity and safety profiles in all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069704, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: 142 patients were randomly assigned, 71 to the BEVZ92 group and 71 to the reference bevacizumab group. Two participants assigned to BEVZ92 did not receive treatment (one withdrew consent, the other had a serious intestinal obstruction before starting treatment); therefore, the treated population comprised 69 patients in the BEVZ92 group and 71 in the reference bevacizumab group. The geometric mean ratio of AUC0-336h in the BEVZ92 versus the control group was 99·4% (90% CI 90·5-109·0) and of AUCss was 100·0% (90·2-112·0). Objective response (35 [49%] of 71 vs 40 [56%] of 71), clinical benefit (62 [87%] vs 65 [92%]), and progression-free survival (median 10·8 months [95% CI 7·4-11·5] vs 11·1 months [95% CI 8·0-12·8]) were similar in the BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab groups. No relevant differences were noted between the safety profiles of the two study treatments. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event reported in the BEVZ92 (14 [20%] of 69 patients) and reference bevacizumab (19 [27%] of 71 patients) groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (28%) patients in the BEVZ92 group and 21 (30%) in the reference bevacizumab group. Two patients died because of bevacizumab-related serious adverse events: a sudden death in the BEVZ92 group and a serious large intestinal perforation in the reference bevacizumab group. The occurrence of anti-drug antibodies was low and similar in both treatment groups (two patients in the BEVZ92 group and one in the reference bevacizumab group). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab are pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and have no appreciable differences in efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profiles as first-line treatment in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: mAbxience Research SL.

Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer (MONALEESA-7): a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In MONALEESA-2, ribociclib plus letrozole showed improved progression-free survival compared with letrozole alone as first-line treatment for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. MONALEESA-7 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with advanced, HR-positive breast cancer. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 188 centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were premenopausal women aged 18-59 years who had histologically or cytologically confirmed HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria, or at least one predominantly lytic bone lesion; and had not received previous treatment with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting was permitted, as was up to one line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to receive oral ribociclib (600 mg/day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) or matching placebo with either oral tamoxifen (20 mg daily) or a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (letrozole 2·5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg, both oral, daily), all with goserelin (3·6 mg administered subcutaneously on day 1 of every 28-day cycle). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. MONALEESA-7 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278120 and is ongoing, but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2014, and Aug 1, 2016, 672 patients were randomly assigned: 335 to the ribociclib group and 337 to the placebo group. Per investigator's assessment, median progression-free survival was 23·8 months (95% CI 19·2-not reached) in the ribociclib group compared with 13·0 months (11·0-16·4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·44-0·69; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients in either group were neutropenia (203 [61%] of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 12 [4%] of 337 in the placebo group) and leucopenia (48 [14%] and four [1%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 60 (18%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 39 (12%) of 337 in the placebo group, of which 15 (4%) and six (2%), respectively, were attributed to the study regimen. 12 (4%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and ten (3%) of 337 in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. 11 deaths occurred (five [1%] in the ribociclib group and six [2%] in the placebo group) during or within 30 days after treatment, most of which were due to progression of the underlying breast cancer (three [1%] and six [2%]). The remaining two deaths in the ribociclib group were due to an intracranial haemorrhage in an anticoagulated patient, and a pre-existing wound haemorrhage in another patient. INTERPRETATION: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy improved progression-free survival compared with placebo plus endocrine therapy, and had a manageable safety profile in patients with premenopausal, HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. The combination could represent a new first-line treatment option for these patients. FUNDING: Novartis.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial of Ipilimumab Versus Placebo in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Patients With Metastatic Chemotherapy-Naive Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.

Ombrabulin plus cisplatin versus placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas after failure of anthracycline and ifosfamide chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ombrabulin (AVE8062) disrupts the vasculature of established tumours and has shown preclinical synergistic anti-tumour activity when combined with cisplatin. In this phase 3 trial, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ombrabulin plus cisplatin compared with placebo plus cisplatin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS: We did this multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study at 44 centres in ten countries. Patients aged 18 years and older with metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and who had previously received treatment with anthracycline and ifosfamide were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous infusion of ombrabulin 25 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or intravenous infusion of placebo plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Patients were allocated to treatment using a permuted blocks randomisation scheme (block size of four) via an interactive voice-response system, and stratified by histological subtype. Patients, medical staff, study investigators, and individuals who handled and analysed the data were masked to treatment assignment. Our primary endpoint was median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done on all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is now closed, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00699517. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we randomly assigned 355 patients to ombrabulin plus cisplatin (n=176) or placebo plus cisplatin (n=179). Median duration of follow-up was 27·9 (IQR 20·9-33·2) in the placebo group and 30·5 months (20·7-37·6) in the ombrabulin group. Progression-free survival was slightly, but significantly, improved in the ombrabulin group compared with the placebo group (median 1·54 months [95% CI 1·45-2·69] vs 1·41 [1·38-1·58] months; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·59-0·98]; p=0·0302). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred more frequently in individuals in the ombrabulin group than in those in the placebo group and included neutropenia (34 [19%] in the ombrabulin group vs 14 [8%] in the placebo group) and thrombocytopenia (15 [8%] vs six [3%] for placebo). Adverse events leading to death occurred in 18 patients in the ombrabulin group and 10 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The combination of ombrabulin and cisplatin significantly improved progression-free survival; however, it did not show a sufficient clinical benefit in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas to support its use as a therapeutic option. Predictive biomarkers are needed for the rational clinical development of tumour vascular-disrupting drugs for soft-tissue sarcomas. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614. FINDINGS: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Randomized phase III trial of single-agent pemetrexed versus carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2.

PURPOSE: To compare single-agent pemetrexed (P) versus the combination of carboplatin and pemetrexed (CP) in first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter phase III randomized trial, patients with advanced NSCLC, ECOG PS of 2, any histology at first and later amended to nonsquamous only, no prior chemotherapy, and adequate organ function were randomly assigned to P alone (500 mg/m(2)) or CP (area under the curve of 5 and 500 mg/m(2), respectively) administered every 3 weeks for a total of four cycles. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 205 eligible patients were enrolled from eight centers in Brazil and one in the United States from April 2008 to July 2011. The response rates were 10.3% for P and 23.8% for CP (P = .032). In the intent-to-treat population, the median PFS was 2.8 months for P and 5.8 months for CP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63; P < .001), and the median OS was 5.3 months for P and 9.3 months for CP (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.83; P = .001). One-year survival rates were 21.9% and 40.1%, respectively. Similar results were seen when patients with squamous disease were excluded from the analysis. Anemia (grade 3, 3.9%; grade 4, 11.7%) and neutropenia (grade 3, 1%; grade 4, 6.8%) were more frequent with CP. There were four treatment-related deaths in the CP arm. CONCLUSION: Combination chemotherapy with CP significantly improves survival in patients with advanced NSCLC and ECOG PS of 2.

Selumetinib plus docetaxel for KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: No targeted therapies are available for KRAS-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib is an inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2, downstream of KRAS, with preclinical evidence of synergistic activity with docetaxel in KRAS-mutant cancers. We did a prospective, randomised, phase 2 trial to assess selumetinib plus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. METHODS: Eligible patients were older than 18 years of age; had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV KRAS-mutant NSCLC; had failed first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC; had WHO performance status of 0-1; had not received previous therapy with either a MEK inhibitor or docetaxel; and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21 day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21 day cycle). Randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and investigators, patients, data analysts, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed for all patients with confirmed KRAS mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00890825. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2009, and June 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 44 patients to receive selumetinib and docetaxel (selumetinib group) and 43 to receive placebo and docetaxel (placebo group). Of these, one patient in the selumetinib group and three in the placebo group were excluded from efficacy analyses because their tumours were not confirmed to be KRAS-mutation positive. Median overall survival was 9·4 months (6·8-13·6) in the selumetinib group and 5·2 months (95% CI 3·8-non-calculable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] for death 0·80, 80% CI 0·56-1·14; one-sided p=0·21). Median progression-free survival was 5·3 months (4·6-6·4) in the selumetinib group and 2·1 months (95% CI 1·4-3·7) in the placebo group (HR for progression 0·58, 80% CI 0·42-0·79; one-sided p=0·014). 16 (37%) patients in the selumetinib group and none in the placebo group had an objective response (p<0·0001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 36 (82%) patients in the selumetinib group and 28 (67%) patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (29 [67%] of 43 patients in the selumetinib group vs 23 [55%] of 42 patients in the placebo group), febrile neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group), dyspnoea (one [2%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs five [12%] of 42 in the placebo group), and asthenia (four [9%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Selumetinib plus docetaxel has promising efficacy, albeit with a higher number of adverse events than with docetaxel alone, in previously treated advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. These findings warrant further clinical investigation of selumetinib plus docetaxel in KRAS-mutant NSCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.