A Phase IIIb Open-Label, Single-Arm Study of Afatinib in EGFR TKI-Naïve Patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC: Final Analysis, with a Focus on Patients Enrolled at Sites in China.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib has been shown as a suitable option for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in randomized controlled trials. However, patients treated in real-world clinical practice, including elderly patients, and those with brain metastases or poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance statuses, are often excluded from these studies. OBJECTIVE: To report the final results, with a particular focus on patients enrolled in China, from a prospective phase IIIb, "near real-world" study of afatinib in tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-naïve Asian patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NCT01953913 was conducted at 34 centers across Asia. Entry criteria were broad to reflect real-world settings. Patients received afatinib 40 mg/day until tumor progression, lack of clinical benefit, or poor tolerability. Assessments included safety, time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 541 patients were treated, of whom 412 were enrolled in China. Dose reductions were implemented in 28.7% of patients overall, and 17.7% of patients from China. Safety findings were consistent with phase III studies of afatinib. Median TTSP in all patients was 14.0 months (95% CI 12.9-15.9), and median PFS was 12.1 months (95% CI 11.0-13.6). Median TTSP (13.8 months, 95% CI 12.7-16.1) and PFS (11.4 months, 95% CI 10.9-13.7) were similar in patients from China to the overall population. Among patients from China who had dose reductions, TTSP was numerically longer than in those who did not (16.4 vs. 13.8 months; P = 0.0703), while PFS was significantly longer (13.9 vs. 11.1 months; P = 0.0275). Among patients from China with brain metastases, TTSP was numerically shorter than in those without (11.0 vs. 14.4 months; P = 0.0869), whereas PFS was significantly shorter (9.2 vs. 12.9 months; P = 0.0075). CONCLUSIONS: Safety data for afatinib when used in a "near real-world" setting in patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC was consistent with the known safety profile of afatinib. Supporting efficacy data of afatinib were provided in all patients, and in those enrolled in China. Tolerability-guided afatinib dose reduction allowed patients to remain on treatment and continue to experience clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: NCT01953913 (1 October 2013).

ATOM: A phase II study to assess efficacy of preemptive local ablative therapy to residual oligometastases of NSCLC after EGFR TKI.

OBJECTIVES: NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutation invariably developed resistance to EGFR TKI. We postulated that oligoresidual disease (ORD) after initial TKI might harbor resistant clones. This study aimed to test if preemptive local ablative therapy (LAT) can improve progression free survival (PFS) or not compared to historic data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients indicated for EGFR TKI who possessed ORD (≤ 4 PET-avid lesions) after an initial 3-month TKI therapy were enrolled. After screening PET-CT, eligible patients with PET-avid ORDs were treated by LAT, either by stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery per clinicians' discretion. TKI was continued after LAT until it was considered ineffective. PET-CT was repeated on the 3rd and 12th month post-LAT (or at progression) apart from regular imaging. Further LAT was allowed in oligoprogressive disease. Primary endpoint was PFS rate at one-year from enrollment. Overall survival (OS), PFS and treatment safety were secondary endpoints. A post hoc comparison with screen failure cohort was performed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled from 2014-17. Recruitment was stopped before the planned number (34) due to slow accrual. Two were excluded due to consent withdrawal and significant protocol violation. Median follow up was 39.1 months. Among the 16 analyzed patients, the one-year PFS rate (i.e. 15 month post TKI) was 68.8 %. Median OS was 43.3 months. All LAT were done by SABR, and none experienced ≥ grade 3 SABR related toxicities. Compared with screen failure cohort (n = 48), pre-emptive LAT effectively reduced risk of progression (HR 0.41, p = 0.0097). CONCLUSION: Preemptive LAT in ORD appeared to be safe and feasible. The 1-year PFS rate was encouraging. However, potential biases and the limitations of the study should not be overlooked. Further randomized studies are warranted.

Global named patient use program of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients who progressed following prior therapies.

AIM: A global afatinib named patient use program in non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) commenced in 2010. MATERIALS & METHODS: Eligible NSCLC patients had progressed after clinical benefit on prior erlotinib/gefitinib and/or had activating EGFR/HER2 mutations, exhausted all other treatments, and were ineligible for afatinib trials. RESULTS: Data, as of January 2016, were reported on 3966 heavily pretreated NSCLC patients (41 countries; six continents). Among 2595/3966 (65.4%) patients with tumor EGFR status, 2407 (92.8%) were EGFR mutation positive. Median time to treatment failure (2862/3966 [72.2%] patients with available data) was 4.4 months. Among 1141/2862 (39.9%) patients with response reported, objective response rate was 23.4% (267/1141). Safety findings were as expected. CONCLUSION: Time to treatment failure durations and objective response rates were encouraging.

Treating patients with EGFR-sensitizing mutations: first line or second line--is there a difference?

First-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) is a standard treatment for patients with activating EGFR mutations. Six randomized studies have demonstrated consistent improvement in tumor response rate and progression-free survival over platinum-based combination chemotherapy. The only reason to consider EGFR TKI as second-line therapy is that none of the six comparative studies has shown improvement in overall survival, which can be explained by the high proportion of patients from the chemotherapy arm crossing over to the EGFR TKI arm on progression. It is true that patients with EGFR mutations may benefit from second-line EGFR TKI therapy, but we cannot conclude that the benefit is either equal to or inferior to first-line EGFR TKI therapy. To date, there are no direct comparative data between first- and second-line EGFR TKI in patients with activating EGFR mutations. Tumor response rates to second-line EGFR TKI have been inconsistent, which could potentially be explained by the impact of first-line chemotherapy on the abundance of tumor cells with activating EGFR mutations. However, numerous arguments, including assurance on drug exposure, improvement in quality of life, better tolerance by patients with poor performance status, and deferral of whole-brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastasis, support the general application of first-line EGFR TKI.

Management of malignant pleural effusion: Options and recommended approaches.

There is no consensus on the best management of symptomatic malignant pleural effusion. Drainage with a small bore pleural catheter is preferred over a wide bore catheter or recurrent pleural aspiration in patients with symptomatic malignant pleural effusion, for equivalent efficacy and patient comfort. If resources allow, chemical pleurodesis under thoracoscopy, with talc as sclerosant, is preferred for fully expanded lung over bedside chemical pleurodesis in fit patients. A chronic indwelling catheter is an alternative. Controversy exists over the use of chemical pleurodesis or a long term indwelling catheter as the first line management of choice of malignant pleural effusion. Pleural effusion in the entrapped lung scenario is a problematic situation. Pleuroperitoneal shunting or decortication procedures are out of favor as they are more invasive and present more complications. Management algorithm is recommended based on the current data.

Health-related quality-of-life in a randomized phase III first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced NSCLC (IPASS).

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and symptom improvement were preplanned secondary objectives for the overall population and posthoc analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive/negative subgroups in IPASS. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI); symptom improvement by the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS). Improvements defined as: 6 or more (FACT-L; TOI), 2 or more (LCS) points increase maintained for 21 or more days. RESULTS: Overall (n = 1151/1217 evaluable), HRQoL improvement rates were significantly greater with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Significantly more patients recorded improvements in HRQoL and symptoms with gefitinib in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 259; FACT-L 70.2% versus 44.5%; odds ratio, 3.01 [95% confidence interval, 1.79-5.07]; p < 0.001; TOI 70.2% versus 38.3%; 3.96 [2.33-6.71]; p < 0.001; LCS 75.6% versus 53.9%; 2.70 [1.58-4.62]; p < 0.001), and with carboplatin/paclitaxel in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (n = 169; FACT-L 14.6% versus 36.3%; odds ratio, 0.31 [0.15-0.65]; p = 0.002; TOI 12.4% versus 28.8%; 0.35 [0.16-0.79]; p = 0.011; LCS 20.2% versus 47.5%; 0.28 [0.14-0.55]; p < 0.001). Median time-to-worsening (months) FACT-L score was longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for the overall population (8.3 versus 2.5) and EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (15.6 versus 3.0), and similar for both treatments in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (1.4 versus 1.4). Median time-to-improvement with gefitinib was 8 days in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors who improved. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL and symptom endpoints were consistent with efficacy outcomes in IPASS and favored gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors and carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with EGFR mutation-negative tumors.

Targeted therapy: an evolving world of lung cancer.

Lung cancer remains one of the most fatal illnesses. Recent development in cancer genomics and molecular targeted therapy leads to a paradigm shift in management of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Patients with activated mutation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) responded dramatically to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor such as gefitinib or erlotinib. Multiple randomized studies have showed EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor to be superior to standard first-line chemotherapy in this biomarker-selected population. As the vasculature is considered to be the 'Achillus heel' of the tumour, anti-angiogenic treatment is considered to be a suitable target. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor may improve the efficacy of chemotherapy, although a practical biomarker has not been identified. We have entered an era of personalized therapy for lung cancer and this evolvement holds great promises for better treatment in future.

Chemotherapy response in East Asian non-small cell lung cancer patients harboring wild-type or activating mutation of epidermal growth factor receptors.

INTRODUCTION: Previous exploratory analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutational status in tumor samples from randomized clinical studies suggested that patients with activating mutation of the EGFR had better survival than those harboring wild-type EGFR. METHODS: We analyzed the EGFR sequence of tumor samples from advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients previously participated in treatment clinical trials. Responses to chemotherapy and survival of EGFR mutation-positive or -negative patients were compared. RESULTS: Tumor samples from 122 patients were available for analysis. EGFR mutation was present in 58 patients (47.5%). In 105 stage IIIB/IV patients, there was a nonstatistically significant trend toward a higher chemotherapy response rate of patients with mutated EGFR than those with wild-type EGFR (44.6% versus 30.6%, p = 0.162). Female, never-smoking, and adenocarcinoma patients lived longer than male (p = 0.0139), smoking (p = 0.0045), or nonadenocarcinoma (p = 0.0151) patients. There was no difference in the survival of patients with mutated or wild-type EGFR (p = 0.2159). There was no difference in progression-free survival of first-line chemotherapy between patients with wild-type or mutation in EGFR (6.6 months versus 6.1 months). CONCLUSION: There is a nonstatistically significant trend toward a higher chemotherapy response rate in patients with mutated EGFR than those with wild-type EGFR. EGFR gene mutation is not a predictive biomarker for progression-free and overall survival to cytotoxic chemotherapy in East Asians with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

A multicenter phase II trial of 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP, Triapine) and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with pharmacokinetic evaluation using peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that 3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone (3-AP, Triapine) may enhance response to re-treatment with gemcitabine by enhancing intracellular uptake of gemcitabine in a phase II study. METHOD: Patients who had prior exposure to gemcitabine as a first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were given weekly infusions of 3-AP and gemcitabine for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest, repeated every 28 days. Plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected to evaluate the effect of 3-AP on pharmacokinetics and intracellular uptake of gemcitabine. RESULT: Twelve patients were treated with a median of two treatment cycles without objective response, hence the study was terminated at interim analysis. Four patients had stable disease and the median time to progression was 3 months (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.7 to 9.1 months). Grade 3 toxicities included neutropenia (two patients), hypoxia (three patients) and dyspnea (one patient). Four patients developed reversible symptomatic methemoglobinemia during 3-AP infusion, with mild to moderately elevated methemoglobin levels that ranged from 7.8 to 17.6% of the total hemoglobin concentration. Limited pharmacokinetic data did not suggest any clinically relevant pharmacological influence of 3-AP on gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: 3-AP did not enhance clinical response to gemcitabine in this cohort of patients with prior exposure to gemcitabine for advanced NSCLC. Further development of 3-AP in lung cancer is challenged by its potential of causing methemoglobinemia and hypoxia, which could be problematic in patients with compromised pulmonary reserves.

Sequential chemotherapy with combination irinotecan and cisplatin followed by docetaxel for treatment-naïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sequential administration of platinum-based doublet therapy and then a taxane may reduce the risk of drug resistance and, therefore, improve treatment outcome. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sequential administration of irinotecan and cisplatin and then docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients received irinotecan in 60-mg/m2 infusions for 30 to 60 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15, and cisplatin in 75-mg/m2 infusions for 60 minutes on day 1 every 28 days for four cycles (IC). Regardless of the response, patients received up to four cycles of sequential docetaxel in 75-mg/m2 infusions for 60 minutes. RESULTS: Forty-six patients with histologically confirmed chemotherapy-naïve stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were enrolled, of whom 42 were evaluable. The response rate at completion of chemotherapy with IC was 45.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.2%-60.3%). Five patients had improvement of disease status during sequential docetaxel, and seven patients had disease progression. Progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95% CI: 5.4-9.9 months), and the overall median survival was 14.6 months (95% CI: 9.8-17.9 months). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates were 54.3%, 22.6%, and 12.1%, respectively. The incidence of severe (> or =CTC V2 grade 3) neutropenia during IC was 23.9% compared with 95.7% for sequential docetaxel (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Sequential administration of IC and then docetaxel is feasible and is associated with a prolonged progression-free survival, but the current data do not confirm an improvement in treatment outcome by the sequential approach.

Phase II randomized study comparing the toxicity profile of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with gemcitabine plus oral etoposide in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This is a randomized phase II study designed to compare the toxicity profile of a non-platinum-based with a platinum-based regimen in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Eighty-nine chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomized either to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2, 30-min infusion on days 1, 8 and 15) and oral etoposide (50 mg, days 1-14; GE group) or gemcitabine at the same schedule and cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 15; GP group). The primary endpoint is toxicity, and secondary endpoints include response rate, survival outcome and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The incidence of WHO grade 3 or 4 anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 29, 44 and 22% (GE group), and 28, 49 and 23% (GP group), respectively (p = 0.75, 0.95 and 0.87, respectively). The rate of grade 2 or above nausea was numerically higher in the GP arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (GE 15.5%, GP 27.7%, p = 0.20). The rate of vomiting in the GE and GP arms was 20.0 and 20.5%, respectively (p = 0.96). However, subjective changes in QOL scores on nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the GP arm (p = 0.001). Other symptoms including sore mouth and hair loss were significantly higher in the GE arm (p = 0.003 and 0.007, respectively). There were also significant differences observed in emotional (p = 0.014), cognitive (p = 0.028) and social functioning (p = 0.034) in favor of GP. The differences in tumor response (35.5 and 46.5% for GE and GP, respectively) were not significantly different. Median time to disease progression (33.8 and 40.7 weeks, respectively) and overall survival (41.4 and 57.3 weeks, respectively) were of borderline significance in favor of the GP arm (p = 0.055). CONCLUSION: This toxicity profile of GE is similar to GP, but the apparent inferior efficacy may discourage further investigation.