Impact of copy number variant and single nucleotide polymorphism of the programmed death-ligand 1 gene, programmed death-ligand 1 protein expression and therapy regimens on overall survival in a large group of Caucasian patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma.

Anti-programmed death-1 or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade may be ineffective in some patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high percentage of tumor cells with PD-L1 expression. In addition, immunotherapy may provide great benefits in patients without PD-L1 expression. The present study assessed PD-L1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry, copy number variation (CNV) of PD-L1 and two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs822335 and rs822336, in the promoter of PD-L1 by quantitative PCR in 673 patients with NSCLC. Overall survival time of patients with NSCLC depending on the assessed predictive factors (PD-L1 CNV or SNP) and the treatment methods (immunotherapy in first/second line of treatment or chemotherapy) was analyzed. The present study revealed significantly higher PD-L1 copies number in patients with ≥10% and ≥50% of tumor cells with PD-L1 expression compared to patients with lower percentage of PD-L1-positive tumor cells (P=0.02 and P=0.0002, respectively). There was a significant positive correlation (R=0.2; P=0.01) between number of PD-L1 copies and percentage of tumor cells with PD-L1 protein expression. Percentage of tumor cells with PD-L1 expression was lower in patients with TT genotype of the rs822335 polymorphism compared to those with CC genotype (P=0.03). The present study observed significantly higher risk of death in patients treated with chemotherapy compared to those treated with immunotherapy (P<0.0001; hazard ratio=2.4768; 95% confidence interval, 2.0120-3.0490). The present study demonstrated a close relationship between PD-L1 copies number, genotype of rs822335 PD-L1 polymorphism and PD-L1 protein expression on tumor cells. However, the impact of CNV and SNPs of PD-L1 on overall survival of patients with NSCLC requires further investigation.

Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line durvalumab plus etoposide with either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) showed a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the CASPIAN study. Here we report updated results, including the primary analysis for overall survival with durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone. METHODS: CASPIAN is an ongoing, open-label, sponsor-blind, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 209 cancer treatment centres in 23 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years in Japan) and had treatment-naive, histologically or cytologically documented ES-SCLC, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six, stratified by planned platinum, using an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive intravenous durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, or platinum-etoposide alone. In all groups, patients received etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle. Patients in the platinum-etoposide group received up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks and optional prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion). Patients in the immunotherapy groups received four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks. The two primary endpoints were overall survival for durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide and for durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 972 patients were screened and 805 were randomly assigned (268 to durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide, 268 to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and 269 to platinum-etoposide). As of Jan 27, 2020, the median follow-up was 25·1 months (IQR 22·3-27·9). Durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide was not associated with a significant improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00]; p=0·045); median overall survival was 10·4 months (95% CI 9·6-12·0) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained improvement in overall survival versus platinum-etoposide (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·62-0·91]; nominal p=0·0032); median overall survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 11·3-14·7) versus 10·5 months (9·3-11·2). The most common any-cause grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (85 [32%] of 266 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 64 [24%] of 265 patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 88 [33%] of 266 patients in the platinum-etoposide group) and anaemia (34 [13%], 24 [9%], and 48 [18%]). Any-cause serious adverse events were reported in 121 (45%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group, 85 (32%) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group, and 97 (36%) in the platinum-etoposide group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 12 (5%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each]; enterocolitis, general physical health deterioration and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pneumonia, pneumonitis and hepatitis, respiratory failure, and sudden death [n=1 each]), six (2%) patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group (cardiac arrest, dehydration, hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease, pancytopenia, and sepsis [n=1 each]), and two (1%) in the platinum-etoposide group (pancytopenia and thrombocytopenia [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide showed sustained overall survival improvement versus platinum-etoposide but the addition of tremelimumab to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide did not significantly improve outcomes versus platinum-etoposide. These results support the use of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide as a new standard of care for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have extensive-stage disease at presentation, and prognosis remains poor. Recently, immunotherapy has demonstrated clinical activity in extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC). The CASPIAN trial assessed durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, in combination with etoposide plus either cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum-etoposide) in treatment-naive patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial was done at 209 sites across 23 countries. Eligible patients were adults with untreated ES-SCLC, with WHO performance status 0 or 1 and measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide; durvalumab plus tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide; or platinum-etoposide alone. All drugs were administered intravenously. Platinum-etoposide consisted of etoposide 80-100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 of each cycle with investigator's choice of either carboplatin area under the curve 5-6 mg/mL per min or cisplatin 75-80 mg/m2 (administered on day 1 of each cycle). Patients received up to four cycles of platinum-etoposide plus durvalumab 1500 mg with or without tremelimumab 75 mg every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks in the immunotherapy groups and up to six cycles of platinum-etoposide every 3 weeks plus prophylactic cranial irradiation (investigator's discretion) in the platinum-etoposide group. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report results for the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus the platinum-etoposide group from a planned interim analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043872, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between March 27, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 268 patients were allocated to the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 269 to the platinum-etoposide group. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival, with a hazard ratio of 0·73 (95% CI 0·59-0·91; p=0·0047]); median overall survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·5-14·8) in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group versus 10·3 months (9·3-11·2) in the platinum-etoposide group, with 34% (26·9-41·0) versus 25% (18·4-31·6) of patients alive at 18 months. Any-cause adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 163 (62%) of 265 treated patients in the durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide group and 166 (62%) of 266 in the platinum-etoposide group; adverse events leading to death occurred in 13 (5%) and 15 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: First-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide significantly improved overall survival in patients with ES-SCLC versus a clinically relevant control group. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profiles of all drugs received. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

TG4010 immunotherapy and first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (TIME): results from the phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: MUC1 is a tumour-associated antigen expressed by many solid tumours, including non-small-cell lung cancer. TG4010 is a modified vaccinia Ankara expressing MUC1 and interleukin 2. In a previous study, TG4010 combined with chemotherapy showed activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and the baseline value of CD16, CD56, CD69 triple-positive activated lymphocytes (TrPAL) was shown to be potentially predictive of TG4010 efficacy. In this phase 2b part of the phase 2b/3 TIME trial, we further assess TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy and use of the TrPAL biomarker in this setting. METHODS: In this phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial, we recruited previously untreated patients aged 18 years or older with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without a known activating EGFR mutation and with MUC1 expression in at least 50% of tumoural cells. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by an external service provider to subcutaneous injections of 10(8) plaque-forming units of TG4010 or placebo from the beginning of chemotherapy every week for 6 weeks and then every 3 weeks up to progression, discontinuation for any reason, or toxic effects, stratified according to baseline value of TrPAL (≤ or > the upper limit of normal [ULN]) and, in addition, a dynamic minimisation procedure was used, taking into account chemotherapy regimen, histology, addition or not of bevacizumab, performance status, and centre. Patients, site staff, monitors, the study funder, data managers, and the statistician were masked to treatment identity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed every 6 weeks, to validate the predictive value of the TrPAL biomarker. If patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN had a Bayesian probability of more than 95% that the true hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was less than 1, and if those with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN had a probability of more than 80% that the true HR for progression-free survival was more than 1, the TrPAL biomarker would be validated. We did primary analyses in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in those who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one valid post-baseline safety assessment. Monitors, site staff, and patients are still masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01383148. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2012, and Sept 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 222 patients (TG4010 and chemotherapy 111 [50%]; placebo and chemotherapy 111 [50%]). In the whole population, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 5·4-6·7) in the TG4010 group and 5·1 months (4·2-5·9) in the placebo group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·98]; one-sided p=0·019). In patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·75 (0·54-1·03); the posterior probability of the HR being less than 1 was 98·4%, and thus the primary endpoint was met. In patients with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·77 (0·42-1·40); the posterior probability of the HR being greater than 1 was 31·3%, and the primary endpoint was not met. We noted grade 1-2 injection-site reactions in 36 (33%) of 110 patients in the TG4010 group versus four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group. We noted no grade 3 or 4 nor serious adverse events deemed to be related to TG4010 only. Four (4%) patients presented grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to TG4010 and other study treatments (chemotherapy or bevacizumab) versus 11 (10%) in the placebo group. No serious adverse event was related to the combination of TG4010 with other study treatments. The most frequent severe adverse events were neutropenia (grade 3 29 [26%], grade 4 13 [12%] in the TG4010 group vs grade 3 22 [21%], grade 4 11 [10%] in the placebo group), anaemia (grade 3 12 [11%] vs grade 3 16 [15%]), and fatigue (grade 3 12 [11%], grade 5 one [1%] vs grade 3 13 [12%]; no grade 4 events). INTERPRETATION: TG4010 plus chemotherapy seems to improve progression-free survival relative to placebo plus chemotherapy. These data support the clinical value of the TrPAL biomarker in this clinical setting; because the primary endpoint was met, the trial is to continue into the phase 3 part. FUNDING: Transgene, Avancées Diagnostiques pour de Nouvelles Approches Thérapeutiques (ADNA), and OSEO.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Randomized phase II study of carboplatin and etoposide with or without obatoclax mesylate in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of obatoclax mesylate, a small-molecule Bcl-2 inhibitor, added to carboplatin/etoposide chemotherapy as initial treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve subjects with ES-SCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2 received carboplatin/etoposide with (CbEOb) or without (CbE) obatoclax for up to six cycles. Responders to CbEOb could receive maintenance obatoclax until disease progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: 155 subjects (median age 62, 58% male, 10% ECOG PS 2) were treated with CbEOb (n=77) or CbE (n=78); 65% and 59% of subjects, respectively, completed six cycles. ORR was 62% with CbEOb versus 53% with CbE (1-sided p=0.143). Clinical benefit (ORR+ stable disease) trended better with CbEOb (81% versus 68%; p=0.054). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.3-6.5) and 10.5 months (8.9-13.8) with CbEOb and 5.2 months (95% CI: 4.1-5.7) and 9.8 months (7.2-11.2) with CbE. Median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI: 8.9-13.8) and 9.8 months (7.2-11.2) with a nonsignificant hazard ratio for OS, 0.823; 1-sided p=0.121. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were primarily hematologic and similar in frequency between treatment arms. Obatoclax-related somnolence and euphoria were grade 1/2, transient, and did not require treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Obatoclax was well tolerated when added to carboplatin/etoposide in first-line treatment of ES-SCLC, but failed to significantly improve ORR, PFS, or OS.

[Cardiac tamponade as the first symptom of lung cancer]. / Tamponada serca jako pierwszy objaw raka pluca.

Pericardial effusion is a relatively common clinical problem. It is, however, rarely the first symptom of cancer. Cardiac tamponade testifies to an advanced stage of cancer and is a negative prognostic factor. This paper presents a patient in whom cardiac tamponade was the first symptom of lung cancer. A 63-year-old male, habitual smoker, was admitted to hospital due to progressive symptoms of exertional dyspnoea lasting for a few days and chest pain. Echocardiographic examination revealed a large amount of fluid in the pericardium with echocardiographic signs of a life-threatening cardiac tamponade. The patient underwent pericardial puncture and additional imaging examinations. Lung adenocarcinoma was recognized as the underlying disease. Due to the recurrence of the life-threatening cardiac tamponade, video-assisted thoracoscopic pericardial fenestration was performed and systemic chemotherapy was introduced with good results.