Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (DESTINY-Lung01): primary results of the HER2-overexpressing cohorts from a single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: DESTINY-Lung01 is a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study evaluating the antitumour activity and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan, a HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with HER2-overexpressing or HER2 (ERBB2)-mutant unresectable or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The results of the HER2-mutant cohort (cohort 2) have been reported elsewhere. Herein, we report the primary analysis of cohorts 1 and 1A, which aimed to evaluate the activity and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan 5·4 mg/kg and 6·4 mg/kg in patients with HER2-overexpressing NSCLC. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable or metastatic (or both unresectable and metastatic) non-squamous NSCLC who had relapsed following or were refractory to standard treatment or for whom no standard treatment was available, with an HER2 immunohistochemistry score of 3+ or 2+ (without known HER2 mutations) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, were enrolled at 20 specialist hospitals in France, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, and the USA. Patients were assigned to cohorts sequentially, first to cohort 1, to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 6·4 mg/kg (cohort 1), then to cohort 1A, to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5·4 mg/kg, both administered intravenously once every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate by independent central review and was assessed in the full analysis set, which included all patients who signed an informed consent form and were enrolled in the study. Safety was assessed in all enrolled patients who received at least one dose of trastuzumab deruxtecan. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03505710, and is ongoing (closed to recruitment). FINDINGS: Between Aug 27, 2018, and Jan 28, 2020, 49 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 (median age 63·0 years [IQR 58·0-68·0], 30 [61%] male, 19 [39%] female, and 31 [63%] White), and from June 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 41 patients were enrolled in cohort 1A (median age 62·0 years [IQR 56·0-66·0], 22 [54%] male, 19 [46%] female, and 31 [76%] White). As of data cutoff (Dec 3, 2021), the median treatment duration was 4·1 months (IQR 1·4-7·1) in cohort 1 and 5·5 months (1·4-8·7) in cohort 1A, and median follow-up was 12·0 months (5·4-22·4) in cohort 1 and 10·6 months (4·5-13·5) in cohort 1A. Confirmed objective response rate by independent central review was 26·5% (95% CI 15·0-41·1; 13 of 49, all partial responses) in cohort 1 and 34·1% (20·1-50·6; 14 of 41; two complete responses and 12 partial responses) in cohort 1A. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were neutropenia (12 [24%] of 49 in cohort 1, none in cohort 1A), pneumonia (six [12%] and two [5%], respectively), fatigue (six [12%] and three [7%], respectively), and disease progression (six [12%] and four [10%], respectively). Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 26 (53%) of 41 patients in cohort 1 and nine (22%) of 49 patients in cohort 1A. Drug-related serious adverse events were reported in ten (20%) patients and three (7%) patients, respectively. Deaths due to treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in ten (20%) patients in cohort 1 (disease progression in six (12%) patients and bronchospasm, hydrocephalus, respiratory failure, and pneumonitis in one [2%] patient each), and in seven (17%) patients in cohort 1A (due to disease progression in four (10%) patients and dyspnoea, malignant neoplasm, and sepsis in one (2%) patient each). One death due to a treatment-emergent adverse event was determined to be due to study treatment by the investigator, which was in cohort 1 (pneumonitis). Independent adjudication of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis found that drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in ten (20%) patients in cohort 1 (two [4%] grade 1, five [10%] grade 2, and three [6%] grade 5) and two (5%) patients in cohort 1A (one [2%] grade 2 and one [2%] grade 5). An additional patient in cohort 1A had grade 4 pneumonitis after the data cutoff, which was subsequently adjudicated as drug-related grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. INTERPRETATION: Given the low antitumour activity of existing treatment options in this patient population, trastuzumab deruxtecan might have the potential to fill a large unmet need in HER2-overexpressing NSCLC. Our findings support further investigation of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-overexpressing NSCLC. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca.

Impacto psicológico del COVID-19 en los pacientes de Oncología Médica, Hemato Oncología y Oncología Radioterápica de un hospital público en España / Psychological impact of COVID-19 on Medical Oncology, Haemato-Oncology and Radiation Oncology patients at a public hospital in Spain

Objetivo: determinar el impacto psicológico del COVID-19 en los pacientes con cáncer y valorar las variables clínicas y sociodemográficas que influyen en este. Método: se evaluó mediante una metodología observacional, analítica y transversal (T1), el impacto psicológico de la pandemia en 88 pacientes con cáncer de los servicios de Oncología Médica (n=31), Oncología Radioterápica (n=31) y Hemato-Oncología (n=26) del Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre. Para ello se empleó la Escala Hospitalaria de Ansiedad y Depresión (HAD) y The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). Además, se evaluaron las variables sociodemográficas y clínicas empleando un cuestionario de elaboración propia. Resultados: no se hallaron diferencias significativas en la sintomatología presentada por los pacientes de los tres servicios. Del total de participantes, un 22,7%, un 13,6% y un 15,9% obtuvieron puntuaciones clínicas de ansiedad, depresión y estrés postraumático, respectivamente. Asimismo, se encontró una relación directa entre el miedo a contraer el virus y la sintomatología ansioso-depresiva y postraumática (p<0,001). También entre el miedo a contagiar el virus y la depresión (p=0,002) y el miedo a contagiarlo y la sintomatología ansiosa y postraumática (p<0,001). Conclusiones: a pesar de la elevada presencia de sintomatología ansioso-depresiva y postraumática en los participantes, los porcentajes hallados son parecidos a los obtenidos en estudios pre-pandémicos. Los pacientes con un mayor miedo a contraer/contagiar el virus presentaron mayores puntuaciones en la sintomatología clínica, indicando esto la relevancia de evaluar el miedo y la posibilidad de emplearlo como herramienta de cribado (AU)

Objective: Determine the psychological impact of COVID-19 in cancer patients and assess how clinical and socio-demographic variables contribute to it. Methods: this study uses an observational, analytical and cross-sectional methodology (T1) to explore the degree of psychological distress in 88 cancer patients from the Medical Oncology (n=31), Radiation Oncology (n=31) and Haemato-Oncology (n=26) units of the Hospital Universitario 12 Octubre in Madrid, Spain. Mental health was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and The Postraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5). A self-elaborated questionnaire was also used to evaluate the effect of sociodemographic and clinical variables in mental health. Results: No significant differences were found in the symptoms presented by patients from the three different departments. 22.7%, 13.6% and 15.9% of the cancer patients surveyed obtained pathological scores for anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress, respectively. In addition, a direct correlation was found between fear of contracting COVID-19 and anxious, depressive and post-traumatic symptomatology (p<0.001). Also between fear of spreading the virus and depression (p=0,002) and fear of spreading it and anxiety and post-traumatic stress (p<0.001). Conclusions: Despite the high prevalence of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic symptoms that the patients showed, percentages are similar to those obtained in pre-pandemic studies. Respondents who were more afraid of contracting or spreading COVID-19 scored higher in the clinical symptoms, which highlights the importance of evaluating such fears and to use them as a screening tool (AU)

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Brigatinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK+ NSCLC: Final Results of the Phase 1/2 and Randomized Phase 2 (ALTA) Trials.

Introduction: We report brigatinib long-term efficacy and safety from phase 1/2 and phase 2 (ALTA) trials in ALK-rearrangement positive (ALK+) NSCLC. Methods: The phase 1/2 study evaluated brigatinib 30 to 300 mg/d in patients with advanced malignancies. ALTA randomized patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC to brigatinib 90 mg once daily (arm A) or 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg; arm B). Results: In the phase 1/2 study, 79 of 137 brigatinib-treated patients had ALK+ NSCLC; 71 were crizotinib pretreated. ALTA randomized 222 patients (n = 112 in arm A; n = 110 in arm B). Median follow-up at phase 1/2 study end (≈5.6 y after last patient enrolled) was 27.7 months; at ALTA study end (≈4.4 y after last patient enrolled), 19.6 months (A) and 28.3 months (B). Among patients with ALK+ NSCLC in the phase 1/2 study, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8-21.2); median overall survival was 47.6 months (28.6-not reached). In ALTA, median investigator-assessed PFS was 9.2 months (7.4-11.1) in arm A and 15.6 months (11.1-18.5) in arm B; median independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS was 9.9 (7.4-12.8) and 16.7 (11.6-21.4) months, respectively; median overall survival was 25.9 (18.2-45.8) and 40.6 (32.5-not reached) months, respectively. Median intracranial PFS for patients with any brain metastases was 12.8 (9.2-18.4) months in arm A and 18.4 (12.6-23.9) months in arm B. No new safety signals were identified versus previous analyses. Conclusions: Brigatinib exhibited sustained long-term activity and PFS with manageable safety in patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK+ NSCLC.

Abemaciclib in Combination With Pembrolizumab for Stage IV KRAS-Mutant or Squamous NSCLC: A Phase 1b Study.

INTRODUCTION: Abemaciclib is an oral, selective small-molecule CDK 4 and 6 inhibitor. In preclinical models, abemaciclib synergized with programmed cell death protein-1 blockade to enhance antitumor efficacy. Here, we report the safety and anticancer activity of abemaciclib plus pembrolizumab in two cohorts with NSCLC. METHODS: This nonrandomized, open-label, phase 1b study included patients with previously untreated programmed death-ligand 1-positive, KRAS-mutant nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC (cohort A); squamous NSCLC after one previous platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease (cohort B); and two breast cancer cohorts (disclosed separately). Patients received 150 mg abemaciclib every 12 hours plus 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously on day 1 every 21 days. The primary objective was safety; secondary objectives included objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Clinical Trial Number: NCT02779751. RESULTS: Each cohort enrolled 25 patients. Grades greater than or equal to 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in cohorts A and B were reported by 20 (80%) and 19 patients (76%), respectively. Six patients in cohort A (24.0%) and two patients in cohort B (8.0%) had a confirmed partial response; disease control rate was 56% and 64%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-not estimable) and 3.3 months (95% CI: 1.4-5.2); median overall survival was 27.8 months (95% CI: 9.9-not estimable) and 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.7-13.1) in cohorts A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of abemaciclib and pembrolizumab in stage IV NSCLC resulted in greater toxicity compared with that previously reported for each individual treatment. Risk-benefit profile does not warrant further evaluation of the combination in this population.

Brigatinib in Crizotinib-Refractory ALK+ NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-up on Systemic and Intracranial Outcomes in the Phase 2 ALTA Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report updated data from a phase 2 randomized study evaluating brigatinib in crizotinib-refractory anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to take either oral brigatinib 90 mg once daily (arm A) or 180 mg once daily with a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (arm B), stratified by central nervous system (CNS) metastases and best response to crizotinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS (iPFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses included CNS versus ex-CNS target lesion response and correlation of depth of response with PFS and OS. RESULTS: Among 222 randomized patients (112 and 110 in arms A and B, respectively), 59 (27%) remained on brigatinib at analysis (median follow-up: 19.6 versus 24.3 months). At baseline, 71% and 67% had brain lesions among A and B arms, respectively. Investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate was 46% versus 56%. Median IRC-assessed PFS was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval: 7.4-12.8) versus 16.7 months (11.6-21.4). Median OS was 29.5 months (18.2-not reached) versus 34.1 months (27.7-not reached). IRC-confirmed intracranial objective response rate in patients with measurable baseline brain lesions was 50% (13 of 26) versus 67% (12 of 18); median duration of intracranial response was 9.4 versus 16.6 months. IRC-assessed iPFS was 12.8 versus 18.4 months. Across arms, median IRC-assessed PFS was 1.9, 5.5, 11.1, 16.7, and 15.6 months for patients with no, 1%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, and 76%-100% target lesion shrinkage, respectively. No new safety findings were observed with longer follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Brigatinib (180 mg once daily with lead-in) continues to demonstrate robust PFS, long iPFS and duration of intracranial response, and high intracranial objective response rate in crizotinib-refractory patients. Depth of response may be an important end point to capture in future targeted therapy trials.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar ABP 215 Compared with Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MAPLE): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared clinical efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 215 with bevacizumab reference product (RP) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ABP 215 or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every three weeks for 6 cycles. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel every three weeks for ≥4 and ≤6 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR); clinical equivalence was confirmed if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio was within the margin of 0.67 to 1.5. Secondary endpoints included risk difference of ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetics, adverse events (AEs), and incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 820 patients were screened; 642 were randomized to ABP 215 (n = 328) and bevacizumab (n = 314). Overall, 128 (39.0%) and 131 (41.7%) patients in the ABP 215 and bevacizumab groups, respectively, had objective responses [ORR risk ratio: 0.93 (90% CI, 0.80-1.09)]. In the ABP 215 and bevacizumab group, 308 (95.1%) and 289 (93.5%) patients, respectively, had at least 1 AE; 13 (4.0%) and 11 (3.6%) experienced a fatal AE. Anti-VEGF toxicity was low and comparable between treatment groups. At week 19, median trough serum drug concentration was 132 µg/mL (ABP 215 group) and 129 µg/mL (bevacizumab group). No patient tested positive for neutralizing antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: ABP 215 is similar to bevacizumab RP with respect to clinical efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. The totality of evidence supports clinical equivalence of ABP 215 and bevacizumab.

Necitumumab: a new option for first-line treatment of squamous cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: First-line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy has been the standard treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the past decades. The development of new targeted drugs based on molecular alterations (EGFR, ALK, and ROS1) has led to important outcome benefits, but not for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). However, the aberrant function of the EGFR pathway in SCC may be important in the development of the tumor and has been explored in preclinical and clinical studies as a potential target. Areas covered: Necitumumab is a human IgG1 anti-EGFR antibody that binds to the receptor and inhibits further pathway activation, thereby inhibiting cell differentiation, proliferation and migration. The phase III SQUIRE trial was a randomized study of gemcitabine-cisplatin plus necitumumab versus gemcitabine-cisplatin alone for first-line stage IV squamous NSCLC, showing a higher overall survival and better disease control with the addition of necitumumab. Despite the good results, the lack of robust predictive biomarkers makes the selection of the patients who will benefit the most complex. Expert opinion: Necitumumab plus cisplatin-gemcitabine is a first-line treatment option in SCC that improves overall survival and preserves the patient's quality of life with a manageable toxicity profile.

Targeting EGFR in Lung Cancer: Current Standards and Developments.

Lung cancer is the second most common malignant tumor and the leading cause of cancer death. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a distinct subtype of lung cancer comprising approximately 15-40% of non-squamous tumors. The development of first- and second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been a significant step forward in the treatment of patients with EGFR-mutant tumors, and over the last few years has been the therapy of choice in the initial management of patients with activating mutations in EGFR, with some differences in efficacy and toxicity profile. Up to 50% of patients treated with first- and second-generation TKIs develop an EGFR exon 20 T790M mutation at the time of progression. In this context, osimertinib has shown a great benefit in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) in the second-line setting, including central nervous system metastasis control. The FLAURA trial, which compared osimertinib to first-generation inhibitors as first-line therapy, showed a clear PFS advantage for osimertinib and a trend towards an increased overall survival (OS) assessed by investigator review. Although T790M mutation is the most common mechanism of resistance to first- and second-generation EGFR TKIs, other EGFR-dependent and -independent mechanisms have been described, such as HER2 and MET amplifications or BRAF and MEK mutations. Some mechanisms of resistance to osimertinib and other third-generation TKIs have also been described. Several fourth-generation TKIs, targeted drug combinations and immunotherapy strategies are under investigation to overcome resistance to EGFR TKIs in order to improve EGFR-mutant NSCLC patient outcomes.

Brigatinib in Patients With Crizotinib-Refractory Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase II Trial.

Purpose Most crizotinib-treated patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene ( ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ALK-positive NSCLC) eventually experience disease progression. We evaluated two regimens of brigatinib, an investigational next-generation ALK inhibitor, in crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified by brain metastases and best response to crizotinib. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral brigatinib 90 mg once daily (arm A) or 180 mg once daily with a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg (180 mg once daily [with lead-in]; arm B). Investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point. Results Of 222 patients enrolled (arm A: n = 112, 109 treated; arm B: n = 110, 110 treated), 154 (69%) had baseline brain metastases and 164 of 222 (74%) had received prior chemotherapy. With 8.0-month median follow-up, investigator-assessed confirmed ORR was 45% (97.5% CI, 34% to 56%) in arm A and 54% (97.5% CI, 43% to 65%) in arm B. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 15.6) and 12.9 months (95% CI, 11.1 to not reached) in arms A and B, respectively. Independent review committee-assessed intracranial ORR in patients with measurable brain metastases at baseline was 42% (11 of 26 patients) in arm A and 67% (12 of 18 patients) in arm B. Common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (arm A/B, 33%/40%), diarrhea (arm A/B, 19%/38%), headache (arm A/B, 28%/27%), and cough (arm A/B, 18%/34%), and were mainly grades 1 to 2. A subset of pulmonary adverse events with early onset (median onset: day 2) occurred in 14 of 219 treated patients (all grades, 6%; grade ≥ 3, 3%); none occurred after escalation to 180 mg in arm B. Seven of 14 patients were successfully retreated with brigatinib. Conclusion Brigatinib yielded substantial whole-body and intracranial responses as well as robust progression-free survival; 180 mg (with lead-in) showed consistently better efficacy than 90 mg, with acceptable safety.

Spanish Society of Medical Oncology consensus for the use of haematopoietic colony-stimulating factors in cancer patients.

Neutropenia is a common complication of cancer chemotherapy. Colony-stimulating factors (CSF) may be used to avoid neutropenia-associated complications. The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) recently constituted a working group to review the main issues concerning the use of CSF and carried out a consensus process about the use of CSF in cancer patients, held in Madrid on 26 May 2006. The group concluded the following recommendations: prophylactic use of CSF is recommended when a rate of febrile neutropenia (FN) higher than 20% is expected without the use of CSF or when additional risk factors for neutropenia exist; therapeutic use of CSF is recommended in order to treat FN episodes but not to treat afebrile neutropenic episodes. In addition, the use of CSF is considered effective when used to mobilise stem cells before high-dose chemotherapy and when used for chemotherapy schedule optimisation in dose-dense and in dose-intense regimens.