Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations.

PURPOSE: The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. CONCLUSION: Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Pesticide residues in dates using a modified QuEChERS method and GC-MS/MS.

The aim of this study was to develop a convenient, fast, effective and safe analytical method (QuEChERS) to determine 198 pesticide residues in multi-source date palm fruits using gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). The calibration curves for most pesticides were linear in the range of 15-150 µg/kg, with r2 values higher than 0.9934 and the relative standard deviation for all pesticides was ≤20%. The mean recovery rate of pesticides was 70-120% and limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantification (LOQs) were in the range of 5-14 µg/kg and 14-40 µg/kg, respectively. The validated procedure was used to monitor pesticide residues in 30 fresh date samples. It could be concluded that the modified QuEChERS extraction method was efficient in analysing pesticide residues in dates palm and none of the samples contained residues above the MRLs.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. METHODS: This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. FINDINGS: Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3-33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6-12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1-11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57-0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9-15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1-13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. INTERPRETATION: Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. FINDINGS: Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35-44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31-37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28.2 months (95% CI 24.6-33.6) in the afatinib group and 28.2 months (20.7-33.2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 20.4-27.3) in the afatinib group and 23.5 months (18.0-25.6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, p=0.61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33.3 months (95% CI 26.8-41.5) in the afatinib group versus 21.1 months (16.3-30.7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.79, p=0.0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31.4 months (95% CI 24.2-35.3) versus 18.4 months (14.6-25.6), respectively (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p=0.023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27.6 months (19.8-41.7) in the afatinib group versus 40.3 months (24.3-not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.11, p=0.29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19.6 months (95% CI 17.0-22.1) versus 24.3 months (19.0-27.0), respectively (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81-1.83, p=0.34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3-4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). INTERPRETATION: Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations.

PURPOSE: The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. CONCLUSION: Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

LUX-Lung 4: a phase II trial of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed during prior treatment with erlotinib, gefitinib, or both.

PURPOSE: New molecular targeted agents are needed for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress while receiving erlotinib, gefitinib, or both. Afatinib, an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker, has preclinical activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR [ErbB1]) mutant models with EGFR-activating mutations, including T790M. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a Japanese single-arm phase II trial conducted in patients with stage IIIB to IV pulmonary adenocarcinoma who progressed after ≥ 12 weeks of prior erlotinib and/or gefitinib. Patients received afatinib 50 mg per day. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete response or partial response) by independent review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Of 62 treated patients, 45 (72.6%) were EGFR mutation positive in their primary tumor according to local and/or central laboratory analyses. Fifty-one patients (82.3%) fulfilled the criteria of acquired resistance to erlotinib and/or gefitinib. Of 61 evaluable patients, five (8.2%; 95% CI, 2.7% to 18.1%) had a confirmed objective response rate (partial response). Median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.6 months), and median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI, 14.9 months to not achieved). Two patients had acquired T790M mutations: L858R + T790M, and deletion in exon 19 + T790M; they had stable disease for 9 months and 1 month, respectively. The most common afatinib-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (100%) and rash/acne (91.9%). Treatment-related AEs leading to afatinib discontinuation were experienced by 18 patients (29%), of whom four also had progressive disease. CONCLUSION: Afatinib demonstrated modest but noteworthy efficacy in patients with NSCLC who had received third- or fourth-line treatment and who progressed while receiving erlotinib and/or gefitinib, including those with acquired resistance to erlotinib, gefitinib, or both.

Symptom control and quality of life in LUX-Lung 3: a phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time. RESULTS: Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P = .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P < .001) and dyspnea (P < .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P < .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P = .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P < .01). CONCLUSION: In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.

Diethylstilbestrol in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Diethylstilbestrol (DES) was the first hormone treatment used for prostate cancer and has also shown effectiveness in castration-resistant disease in small studies; however, concerns over thromboembolic toxicity have restricted its use in the past. Over 200 elderly men with castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with 1-3 mg of DES, given with 75 mg aspirin and breast bud irradiation. Almost 30% of men showed a significant PSA response and the median time to PSA progression was 4.6 months. Almost 20% of patients with pain had a significant analgesic benefit. The most important toxicity was thromboembolism in 10% of men. Overall the drug has an acceptable toxicity profile and offers a palliative benefit in frail elderly men who may not be fit for chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: • To assess the efficacy and toxicity of diethylstilbestrol (DES) in the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A total of 231 patients with CRPC received treatment with DES at the Royal Marsden Hospital between August 1992 and August 2000. • The median pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 221 ng/mL. • DES was used at a dose of 1-3 mg daily, with aspirin 75 mg. • The primary endpoint was PSA response rate. RESULTS: • The PSA response rate (using PSA Working Group criteria) was 28.9%. • The median time to PSA progression was 4.6 months. • Of patients with bone pain, 18% had an improvement in their European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer pain score. • Thromboembolic complications were seen in 9.9% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: • DES has significant activity in CRPC and can be of palliative benefit. • DES has an acceptable toxicity profile in the management of patients with symptomatic CRPC when used at a dose of 1-3 mg, combined with aspirin and prophylactic breast bud radiotherapy.

Precancerous conditions after H. pylori eradication: a randomized double blind study in first degree relatives of gastric cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Regression of precancerous lesions after H. pylori eradication remains controversial. This study evaluates the change and topography in first degree relatives (FDR) of gastric cancer (GC) patients following H. pylori eradication. METHODS: Participants underwent endoscopy with antrum and corpus histological examinations. Subjects with pangastritis were randomly allocated to placebo or eradication therapy and followed over 4½ years.  RESULTS: Among 989 evaluated FDR, we excluded 468 patients as follows: 108 had macroscopic lesions, 243 had no evidence of any H. pylori infection, and 117 were excluded for other reasons. The remaining subjects (n = 521) were allocated to therapy (group A, n = 261) or placebo (group B, n = 260) groups. Interim analysis of 403 subjects (201 placebo, 202 therapy) showed regression of atrophy (60 out of 97 in the antrum and 37 out of 104 in the corpus) in H.pylori-eradicated versus regression of atrophy (57 out of 184 in the antrum and 23 out of 173 in the corpus) in non-H.pylori-eradicated cases over 2½ years (P < 0.0001). No regression of intestinal metaplasia (IM) occurred in the antrum and corpus of treated subjects over 4½ years. However, progression of IM occurred in the antrum in 17 out of 90 patients in the non-H. pylori-eradicated versus 4 out of 68 H. pylori-eradicated subjects after 4½ years (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Eradication of H. pylori is associated with regression of gastric atrophy but not IM, even in its early stages. Gastric atrophy and IM in the antrum have shown more rapid progression in cases not treated for H. pylori infection (over 4½ years follow-up) compared to H. pylori-eradicated cases.

Afatinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): a phase 2b/3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB-family blocker, has shown preclinical activity when tested in EGFR mutant models with mutations that confer resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We aimed to assess its efficacy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with previous treatment failure on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. METHODS: In this phase 2b/3 trial, we enrolled patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance (ECOG) performance score of 0-2 who had received one or two previous chemotherapy regimens and had disease progression after at least 12 weeks of treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. We used a computer-generated sequence to randomly allocate patients (2:1) to either afatinib (50 mg per day) or placebo; all patients received best supportive care. Randomisation was done in blocks of three and was stratified by sex and baseline ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2). Investigators, patients, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (from date of randomisation to death), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00656136. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2008, and Sept 21, 2009, we identified 697 patients, 585 of whom were randomly allocated to treatment (390 to afatinib, 195 to placebo). Median overall survival was 10·8 months (95% CI 10·0-12·0) in the afatinib group and 12·0 months (10·2-14·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·86-1·35; p=0·74). Median progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group (3·3 months, 95% CI 2·79-4·40) than it was in the placebo group (1·1 months, 0·95-1·68; hazard ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·31-0·48; p<0·0001). No complete responses to treatment were noted; 29 (7%) patients had a partial response in the afatinib group, as did one patient in the placebo group. Subsequent cancer treatment was given to 257 (68%) patients in the afatinib group and 153 (79%) patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events in the afatinib group were diarrhoea (339 [87%] of 390 patients; 66 [17%] were grade 3) and rash or acne (305 [78%] patients; 56 [14%] were grade 3). These events occurred less often in the placebo group (18 [9%] of 195 patients had diarrhoea; 31 [16%] had rash or acne), all being grade 1 or 2. Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 39 (10%) patients in the afatinib group and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group. We recorded two possibly treatment-related deaths in the afatinib group. INTERPRETATION: Although we recorded no benefit in terms of overall survival with afatinib (which might have been affected by cancer treatments given after progression in both groups), our findings for progression-free survival and response to treatment suggest that afatinib could be of some benefit to patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma who have failed at least 12 weeks of previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.

Afatinib for patients with lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (LUX-Lung 2): a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB-family blocker with preclinical activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, we enrolled patients from 30 centres in Taiwan and the USA with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb with pleural effusion or stage IV) with EGFR mutations, who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and no previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We tested two afatinib starting doses: 50 mg daily and subsequently 40 mg daily, introduced to establish whether tolerability could be improved with retention of anti-tumour activity. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response), on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (independent review). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00525148. FINDINGS: 129 patients were treated with afatinib, 99 with a starting dose of 50 mg and 30 with a starting dose of 40 mg. 79 (61%) of 129 patients had an objective response (two complete responses, 77 partial responses). 70 (66%) of the 106 patients with the two common activating EGFR mutations (deletion 19 or L858R) had an objective response, as did nine (39%) of 23 patients with less common mutations. Similar proportions of patients had an objective response when analysed by starting dose (18 [60%] of 30 patients at 40 mg vs 61 [62%] of 99 patients at 50 mg). Of the two most common adverse events (diarrhoea and rash or acne), grade 3 events were more common in patients receiving a 50 mg starting dose (22 [22%] of 99 patients for diarrhoea and 28 [28%] of 99 patients for rash or acne) than they were in those receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two [7%] of 30 patients for both diarrhoea and rash or acne); possibly treatment-related serious adverse events were also less common in patients receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two of 30 patients vs 14 of 99 patients). We recorded one possibly drug-related death (interstitial lung disease). INTERPRETATION: Afatinib shows activity in the treatment of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, especially in patients with deletion 19 or L858R mutations. The efficacy of afatinib 40 mg should be compared with chemotherapy or other EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.

Afatinib pharmacokinetics and metabolism after oral administration to healthy male volunteers.

PURPOSE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics, metabolism and tolerability of afatinib (BIBW 2992), an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker, in healthy male volunteers. METHODS: In this open-label, single-center study, 8 healthy male volunteers received a single oral dose of 15 mg [(14)C]-radiolabeled afatinib (equivalent to 22.2 mg of the dimaleinate salt) as a solution. Blood, urine and fecal samples were collected for at least 96 hours (h) after dosing. Plasma and urine concentrations of afatinib were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. [(14)C]-radioactivity levels in plasma, whole blood, urine and feces were measured by liquid scintillation counting methods. Metabolite patterns were assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: [(14)C]-radioactivity was mainly excreted via feces (85.4%). Overall recovery of [(14)C]-radioactivity was 89.5%, indicative of a complete mass balance. Afatinib was slowly absorbed, with maximum plasma concentrations achieved at a median of 6 h after dosing, declining thereafter in a biexponential manner. The geometric mean terminal half-life of afatinib was 33.9 h in plasma and longer for [(14)C]-radioactivity in plasma and whole blood. Apparent total body clearance for afatinib was high (geometric mean 1,530 mL/min). The high volume of distribution (4,500 L) in plasma may indicate a high tissue distribution. Afatinib was metabolized to only a minor extent, with the main metabolite afatinib covalently bound to plasma proteins. Oxidative metabolism mediated via cytochrome P-450 was of negligible importance for the elimination of afatinib. Afatinib was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Afatinib displayed a complete mass balance with the main route of excretion via feces. Afatinib undergoes minimal metabolism.

Treatment of lung cancer patients and concomitant use of drugs interacting with cytochrome P450 isoenzymes.

OBJECTIVE: The majority of anticancer medicines used in the therapy of lung cancer patients are metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes, but little is known about the frequency of prescribed concomitant medicines interacting via the same enzyme system. This study analyzed the use of medications that could cause drug-drug interactions (inhibition or induction) in lung cancer patients before and during anticancer treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective cross sectional study, all lung cancer patients (ICD-9 codes 162.2-162.9, 231.2) aged ≥18 years who received any anticancer medicines between 1/1/2004 and 6/30/2008 were identified in the US Thomson Reuters MarketScan(®) Claims Database. Patients had to have data for at least 12 months prior to (pre-period) and during their treatment, had no other cancer or use of other anticancer treatment in the pre-period. Patients with renal disease, renal failure, or liver failure were excluded. Drugs known to induce or inhibit P450 enzymes and used before and during lung cancer treatment were categorized with respect to their potency (strong, moderate, low). RESULTS: Out of 144,959 lung cancer patients, 6647 (4.6%) patients met the study entry criteria. Mean age was 67 years, 53% were men, and mean Charlson combordity index was 3.5. 99% of patients received at least one drug known as a substrate, inhibitor or inducer of P450 (98% inhibitors, 93% inducers, 98% substrates) during the patient's anticancer treatment episode. Mean co-treatment duration with any CYP450 agent was 99 days (76% of the episode length); ≥2 different CYP450 agents were prescribed during 98% of episodes, and ≥10 different CYP450 agents were prescribed during 44% of episodes. Use of CYP450 agents was similar in the pre-treatment period: at least one CYP450 agent was prescribed during 99% of episodes (99% inhibitors, 79% inducers, 98% substrates). CONCLUSIONS: Drugs which may cause drug-drug interactions while affecting the CYP 450 enzymes are frequently prescribed both before and during anticancer treatment of lung cancer patients.

Phase I trial of the irreversible EGFR and HER2 kinase inhibitor BIBW 2992 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data have demonstrated that BIBW 2992 is a potent irreversible inhibitor of ErbB1 (EGFR/HER1) and mutated ErbB1 receptors including the T790M variant, as well as ErbB2 (HER2). A phase I study of continuous once-daily oral BIBW 2992 was conducted to determine safety, maximum-tolerated dose, pharmacokinetics (PK), food effect, and preliminary antitumor efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated. PK evaluation was performed after the first dose and at steady-state. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients received BIBW 2992 at 10 to 50 mg/d. BIBW 2992 was generally well-tolerated. The most common adverse effects included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, rash, and fatigue. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 rash (n = 2) and reversible dyspnea secondary to pneumonitis (n = 1). The recommended phase II dose was 50 mg/d. PK was dose proportional with a terminal elimination half-life ranging between 21.3 and 27.7 hours on day 1 and between 22.3 and 67.0 hours on day 27; BIBW 2992 exposure decreased after food intake. Three patients with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC; two with in-frame exon 19 mutation deletions) experienced confirmed partial responses (PR) sustained for 24, 18, and 34 months, respectively. Two other patients (esophageal carcinoma and NSCLC) had nonconfirmed PRs. A patient with a PR at 10 mg/d progressed and developed symptomatic brain metastases, which subsequently regressed with an increased dose of 40 mg/d of BIBW 2992. A further seven patients had disease stabilization lasting > or = 6 months. CONCLUSION: Continuous, daily, oral BIBW 2992 is safe and has durable antitumor activity. It is currently being evaluated in phase III trials.

Recovery of serum testosterone after neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and radical radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the time-course of recovery of serum testosterone levels after a short course of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue (LHRHa) and radical radiotherapy to the prostate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) were sequentially measured prospectively in 59 men who received short-course LHRHa treatment and radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Measurements were made before treatment (baseline), during LHRHa treatment, and at 6, 12, 18, 24 and >40 weeks after the last LHRHa injection. RESULTS: The median (range) time from the first to last LHRHa injection was 116 (54-194) days. The mean (95% confidence interval) testosterone levels (in nmol/L) at baseline, during treatment and at 6, 12, 18, 24 and >40 weeks afterward were 12.0 (10.8-13.1), 0.6 (0.5-0.7), 1.4 (0.6-2.2), 11.4 (9.7-13), 12.2 (10.5-14), 10.4 (8.9-12) and 11.7 (10.5-13). Four men had low baseline testosterone levels (<6.1 nmol/L). At 6 weeks after the last LHRHa injection, no men had testosterone levels in the 'normal' range; 35% were in the normal range at 12 weeks, 85% at 18 weeks, 89% at 24 weeks, and 96% at 1 year. CONCLUSION: After LHRHa treatment and radiotherapy, the testosterone levels of most men had recovered to normal by 18-24 weeks after the last LHRHa injection.

Site of relapse after chemotherapy alone for stage I and II Hodgkin's disease.

BACKGROUND: Short course chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy is a standard treatment for early Hodgkin's disease. There is yet no consensus regarding the appropriate radiotherapy portal following chemotherapy. A good guide to the adjuvant radiotherapy field is the site of relapse in patients treated with chemotherapy alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1980 to 1996, 61 patients with stage I and II supradiaphragmatic Hodgkin's disease were treated with chemotherapy alone at the Royal Marsden Hospital. We undertook a retrospective review and failure analysis to define the pattern of recurrence. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 24 patients had relapsed giving a 5-year relapse rate of 40%. The 5 and 10-year actuarial survival rates were 94 and 89%, respectively with cause-specific survival being 94% at 5 and 10 years. Two-thirds of the relapses were nodal and supradiaphragmatic. Twenty patients (83%) relapsed in the initially involved sites of disease and this was the sole site of recurrence in 11 (45%) of patients. In retrospect, it appeared that at least 12 recurrences could have been prevented by involved field radiotherapy. Review of detailed imaging data (available in 9 out of 11 patients with recurrences in initial sites of disease) showed that the relapses were always in the initially involved nodes. CONCLUSION: After chemotherapy alone in early stage HD most initial recurrences are nodal. Loco-regional recurrences are in the originally involved nodes. Based on limited data it appears that involved nodal RT is equivalent to involved field radiotherapy and may halve the risk of recurrence.

Addition of 18F-FDG-PET scans to radiotherapy planning of thoracic lymphoma.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FDG-PET possesses greater sensitivity and accuracy than computed tomography (CT) in detecting diseased lymph nodes. Though the FDG-PET scans are acquired for similar diagnostic reasons as CT, they are not used in the radiotherapy (RT) planning process. Successful tumourcidal dose is usually delivered but large volumes of normal and non-malignant tissues are irradiated due to the nature of lymphoma and also to the subjectivity of the field determining process. This study tries to lessen the subjectivity of the field determining process by the addition of currently acquired PET to the conventional thoracic lymphoma RT. The differences between retrospectively delineated volumes from CT and FDG-PET were compared and the effect of this additional information was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen FDG-PET scans were registered to corresponding CT scans using rigid-body registration with negligible intra-observer variability. Comparisons were made between the volumes, lateral extensions and the most inferior point of the delineated gross tumour volumes (GTVs). RESULTS: For 1/17 patient data, no diseased volumes were delineated and in 6/17, no volumes were delineated on PET and yet in CT, masses up to 367.2 cm3 were outlined. From the 10 positive-CT and PET data, the GTV(PET) were smaller than GTV(CT) in six cases. Greater than 3.0 cm lateral disease extension differences were observed in 4/10 cases. Inferior tumour extents were confirmed in 6/10 cases whereas in 2/10 patients GTV(CT) was greater than 12.0 cm inferior compared to GTV(PET). CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET data can be introduced to current thoracic lymphoma RT planning protocol with minimal intervention and changes. The subjectivity in the RT planning of thoracic lymphoma would be decreased with the addition of currently acquired FDG-PET data.

Late recurrence in 1263 men with testicular germ cell tumors. Multivariate analysis of risk factors and implications for management.

BACKGROUND: Testicular germ cell tumors are highly curable. However, 10-30% of patients have recurrence after initial treatment. The time-course of recurrence has implications for the duration of follow-up. This study was undertaken to assess the risk and time-course of recurrence and to identify patients at higher risk of late recurrence. METHODS: The records of 1263 patients with primary testicular germ cell tumors presenting to the Royal Marsden Hospital between December 1979 and December 1993 were reviewed. In all, 255 episodes of recurrence were documented (including 44 patients with multiple recurrences) and used to calculate recurrence-free survivals. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (15 seminomas; 38 nonseminomatous germ cell tumors [NSGCT]) had recurrence more than 2 years after initial presentation. A multivariate analysis of risk of recurrence after 2 years identified positive markers at presentation and the presence of differentiated teratomas in postchemotherapy surgical specimens as significant predictors. Very late recurrence (> 5 years) occurred mainly in patients with metastatic NSGCT (12 of 14 patients) with a 1% annual risk of recurrence between 5 and 10 years. Very late recurrence was also seen in one case of metastatic seminoma and one case of Stage I NSGCT managed by surveillance. Most late recurrences (n = 9) were detected at routine annual follow-up visits but five had recurrences with symptoms leading to an unscheduled clinic visit. CONCLUSION: Late recurrences are rare in patients with testicular germ cell tumors and follow-up to detect recurrence may not be needed after 5 years, except in those presenting with metastatic NSGCTs.