Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with relapsed, mesothelin-positive malignant pleural mesothelioma (ARCS-M): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.

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.

Afatinib in locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring common EGFR mutations, after chemotherapy: a Phase IV study.

AIM: The current study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of second-line afatinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following chemotherapy. PATIENTS & METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm Phase IV study, patients with EGFRm+ (Del19/L858R) NSCLC who had progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy received afatinib (starting dose 40 mg/day). The primary end point was confirmed objective response. RESULTS: 60 patients received afatinib for a median duration of 11.5 months. 50% of patients had a confirmed objective response, of median duration 13.8 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.9 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (72%), rash (28%) and paronychia (23%). CONCLUSION: Our data support the use of afatinib (40 mg/day) as an effective and well-tolerated second-line treatment in EGFRm+ NSCLC.

Adjuvant Erlotinib Versus Placebo in Patients With Stage IB-IIIA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (RADIANT): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -tyrosine kinase inhibitors have proven efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that erlotinib would be efficacious in the adjuvant setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with completely resected IB to IIIA NSCLC whose tumors expressed EGFR protein by immunohistochemistry or EGFR amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Patients were assigned 2:1 to erlotinib 150 mg once per day or placebo for 2 years. Stratification factors were stage, histology, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, smoking status, EGFR amplification status, and country. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS); key secondary end points were overall survival (OS) and DFS and OS in patients whose tumors had EGFR-activating mutations (EGFRm-positive). RESULTS: A total of 973 patients were randomly assigned (November 26, 2007, to July 7, 2010). There was no statistically significant difference in DFS (median, 50.5 months for erlotinib and 48.2 months for placebo; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.10; P = .324). Among the 161 patients (16.5%) in the EGFRm-positive subgroup, DFS favored erlotinib (median, 46.4 v 28.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.98; P = .039), but this was not statistically significant because of the hierarchical testing procedure. OS data are immature. Rash and diarrhea were common adverse events occurring in 528 (86.4%) and 319 (52.2%) patients treated with erlotinib, respectively, versus 110 (32.1%) and 54 (15.7%) patients receiving placebo. The most common grade 3 adverse events in patients treated with erlotinib were rash (22.3%) and diarrhea (6.2%). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant erlotinib did not prolong DFS in patients with EGFR-expressing NSCLC or in the EGFRm-positive subgroup. Further evaluation of erlotinib is warranted in the EGFRm-positive subgroup.

Cyclophosphamide and tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2) following first-line chemotherapy in responding patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

The humanized KS-interleukin-2, tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2; EMD 273066), is an EpCAM-specific immunocytokine with reported immunologic activity in combination with cyclophosphamide. This Phase 2, randomized, open-label study compared tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide, administered as maintenance, with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with/without prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Patients received cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m, Day 1 of every 3-week cycle), followed by tucotuzumab (1.5 mg/m, Days 2-4) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), treatment response, and safety. The 6-month PFS rate was lower in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group (n=64) than in the BSC group (n=44): 6.4 versus 12.2% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.98; 80% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.31]. HRs for PFS, time to progression, and OS indicated a similar risk of disease progression and death in both groups and best overall responses were generally comparable. For patients with previous PCI (n=26), there was a nonsignificant trend toward prolonged median PFS (1.7 vs. 1.5 months; HR: 0.60; 80% CI: 0.33-1.11) and OS (21.5 vs. 14.3 months; HR: 0.58; 80% CI: 0.31-1.05) in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group. Adverse events were more frequent with tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide (92.2%) than with BSC (47.7%). Tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide was well tolerated in ED-SCLC patients, but did not show PFS or OS benefits compared with BSC. The observed trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in the subgroup of patients receiving previous PCI may support further confirmation in a larger population.

Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study.

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab, which is an anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION: Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.

Smoking related cancers and loci at chromosomes 15q25, 5p15, 6p22.1 and 6p21.33 in the Polish population.

Genetic factors associated with the risk of smoking related cancers have until recently remained elusive. Since the publication of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on lung cancer new genetic loci have been identified that appear to be associated with disease risk. In this replication study we genotyped 14 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located at the 5p12.3-p15.33, 6p21.3-p22.1, 6q23-q27 and 15q25.1 loci in 874 lung, 450 bladder, 418 laryngeal cancer cases and cancer-free controls, matched by year of birth and sex to the cases. Our results revealed that loci in the chromosome region 15q25.1 (rs16969968[A], rs8034191[G]) and 5p15 (rs402710[T]) are associated with lung cancer risk in the Polish population (smoking status adjusted OR = 1.45, 1.35, 0.77; p ≤ 0.0001, 0.0005, 0.002; 95%CI 1.23-1.72, 1.14-1.59, 0.66-0.91 respectively). None of the other regions analyzed herein were implicated in the risk of lung, bladder or laryngeal cancer. This study supports previous findings on lung cancer but fails to show association of SNPs located in 15q25.1 and 5p15 region with other smoking related cancers like bladder and laryngeal cancer.

Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin. RESULTS: Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.

Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P

Constitutional CHEK2 mutations are associated with a decreased risk of lung and laryngeal cancers.

Mutations in the CHEK2 gene have been associated with increased risks of breast, prostate and colon cancer. In contrast, a previous report suggests that individuals with the I157T missense variant of the CHEK2 gene might be at decreased risk of lung cancer and upper aero-digestive cancers. To confirm this hypothesis, we genotyped 895 cases of lung cancer, 430 cases of laryngeal cancer and 6391 controls from Poland for four founder alleles in the CHEK2 gene, each of which has been associated with an increased risk of cancer at several sites. The presence of a CHEK2 mutation was protective against both lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.5; P = 3 x 10(-8)] and laryngeal cancer (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.3-0.99; P = 0.05). The basis of the protective effect is unknown, but may relate to the reduced viability of lung cancer cells with a CHEK2 mutation. Lung cancers frequently possess other defects in genes in the DNA damage response pathway (e.g. p53 mutations) and have a high level of genotoxic DNA damage induced by tobacco smoke. We speculate that lung cancer cells with impaired CHEK2 function undergo increased rates of cell death.

Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). CONCLUSION: Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Prevalence of the NOD2 3020insC mutation in aggregations of breast and lung cancer.

Both breast and lung cancers are common malignancies and within the context of known genetic predispositions to breast cancer, no association has been made in linking the two diseases together. This does not exclude the possibility that such associations may exist that lie outside the known high-risk breast cancer families. To examine the likelihood of common genetic factors that could influence the risk of disease, two sets of consecutively collected tumor groups were examined for the 3020insC mutation in the NOD2/CARD15 gene. A total of 4107 consecutively collected breast cancer patients were assessed for the prevalence of the 3020insC mutation and compared to a consecutively collected series of 389 lung cancer patients and 2068 control samples. The results revealed that a proportion of breast cancer patients who had a first or a second degree relative diagnosed with lung cancer were more likely to harbour a change in NOD2/CARD15 compared to patients who had no relatives affected by lung cancer. Furthermore, this difference appeared to be specific to the breast and lung cancer subgroup since there was no difference in the frequency of the 3020insC allele in the consecutively collected lung cancer patients. In conclusion, it appears that the 3020insC mutation of the NOD2/CARD15 gene may be a genetic predisposing factor for aggregations of breast and lung cancer.