A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

Phase II, Open-Label Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib in Patients With BRAFV600-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The combination of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) plus binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) has demonstrated clinical efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received oral encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology review (IRR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, time to response, and safety. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 98 patients (59 treatment-naïve and 39 previously treated) with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC received encorafenib plus binimetinib. Median duration of treatment was 9.2 months with encorafenib and 8.4 months with binimetinib. ORR by IRR was 75% (95% CI, 62 to 85) in treatment-naïve and 46% (95% CI, 30 to 63) in previously treated patients; median DOR was not estimable (NE; 95% CI, 23.1 to NE) and 16.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to NE), respectively. DCR after 24 weeks was 64% in treatment-naïve and 41% in previously treated patients. Median PFS was NE (95% CI, 15.7 to NE) in treatment-naïve and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.2 to NE) in previously treated patients. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (50%), diarrhea (43%), and fatigue (32%). TRAEs led to dose reductions in 24 (24%) and permanent discontinuation of encorafenib plus binimetinib in 15 (15%) patients. One grade 5 TRAE of intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Interactive visualization of the data presented in this article is available at the PHAROS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/pharos/). CONCLUSION: For patients with treatment-naïve and previously treated BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC, encorafenib plus binimetinib showed a meaningful clinical benefit with a safety profile consistent with that observed in the approved indication in melanoma.

Final Overall Survival, Safety, and Quality of Life Results From a Phase 2 Study of Crizotinib in East Asian Patients With ROS1-Positive Advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: Crizotinib provided meaningful clinical benefit in the initial analysis of a phase 2 study in East Asian patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC (NCT01945021). Nevertheless, overall survival (OS) data were immature. Here, we present the final OS, quality of life (QoL), and safety data after an additional 3 years of follow-up. Methods: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial, East Asian patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who had received less than or equal to three systemic therapies previously were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily on a continuous daily dosing schedule in 28-day cycles. The OS (secondary end point) was analyzed for the total population, by country, and by number of previous chemotherapy regimens. QoL and safety were also evaluated. Results: With a median duration of follow-up of 56.1 months, the median OS was 44.2 months (95% confidence interval: 32.0-not reached) for the total population (N = 127). Differences in median OS were observed among individual countries and with number of previous regimens. The improvement in QoL found in the previous analysis was maintained with the extended follow-up. Treatment-related adverse events led to crizotinib dose reductions or permanent treatment discontinuations in 17.3% and 2.4%, respectively, of the patients. Conclusions: This is the largest trial of an ALK/ROS1 inhibitor to treat patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC and provides a new benchmark for OS in East Asian patients. The QoL and safety profile with long-term follow-up were consistent with previous reports and support the continued use of crizotinib in the treatment of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Association of anticoagulant use with clinical outcomes from crizotinib in ALK- and ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small cell lung cancers: A retrospective analysis of PROFILE 1001.

BACKGROUND: ROS1- and ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLCs are associated with increased thromboembolic risk. We hypothesized that a prothrombotic phenotype offers an evolutionary advantage to subsets of these cancers. The impact of this phenotype could alter outcomes from targeted therapy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of ROS1- and ALK-rearranged NSCLCs treated with crizotinib in a phase 1 trial, we compared progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) based on the history of anticoagulation use (a possible surrogate of thromboembolism) at baseline (within 90 days before study enrollment) or within 90 days of study treatment. RESULTS: Twelve out of 53 (22.6%) ROS1- and 39 out of 153 (25.5%) ALK-rearranged NSCLCs received anticoagulation before or during the trial. Most ROS1 and ALK patients on anticoagulation received low-molecular-weight heparin (75% and 64.1%, respectively). In the ROS1-rearranged group, the median PFS (95% CI) values were 5.1 (4.4-14.4) and 29.0 (16.5-48.8) months, and the ORR values were 41.7% (95% CI: 15.2 to 72.3) and 80.5% (95% CI: 65.1 to 91.2) among those with and without anticoagulation treatment, respectively. In the ALK-rearranged group, the median PFS (95% CI) was 7.1 (5.4-7.7) and 12.0 (9.4-18.3) months, and the ORR was 41% (95% CI: 25.6 to 57.9) and 74.3% (95% CI: 65.3 to 82.1) among those with and without anticoagulation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation (as a potential surrogate of a prothrombotic subset) in ROS1- and ALK-rearranged NSCLCs may be associated with a lower PFS and ORR to crizotinib. CLINICALTRIAL: gov: NCT00585195.

Effectiveness of crizotinib versus entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer using clinical and real-world data.

Aims: To compare clinical trial results for crizotinib and entrectinib in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer and compare clinical trial data and real-world outcomes for crizotinib. Patients & methods: We analyzed four phase I-II studies using a simulated treatment comparison (STC). A STC of clinical trial versus real-world evidence compared crizotinib clinical data to real-world outcomes. Results: Adjusted STC found nonsignificant trends favoring crizotinib over entrectinib: objective response rate, risk ratio = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.85-1.28); median duration of response, mean difference = 16.11 months (95% CI: -1.57- 33.69); median progression-free survival, mean difference = 3.99 months (95% CI: -6.27-14.25); 12-month overall survival, risk ratio = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.90-1.12). Nonsignificant differences were observed between the trial end point values and the real-world evidence for crizotinib. Conclusions: Crizotinib and entrectinib have comparable efficacy in ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with BRAFV600-mutant non-small cell lung cancer: phase II PHAROS study design.

BRAFV600 oncogenic driver mutations occur in 1-2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and have been shown to be a clinically relevant target. Preclinical/clinical evidence support the efficacy and safety of BRAF and MEK inhibitor combinations in patients with NSCLC with these mutations. We describe the design of PHAROS, an ongoing, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial evaluating the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib plus the MEK inhibitor binimetinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC, as first- or second-line treatment. The primary end point is objective response rate, based on independent radiologic review (per RECIST v1.1); secondary objectives evaluated additional efficacy end points and safety. Results from PHAROS will describe the antitumor activity/safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant NSCLC.

Plain language summary Some people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have changes in a gene called BRAF (known as 'gene mutations'). One common BRAF mutation is called 'V600'. Combinations of medicines that block proteins encoded by mutant BRAF and another gene called MEK can shrink tumors and slow their progression. We describe the design of PHAROS, a clinical trial investigating encorafenib (mutant BRAF inhibitor) combined with binimetinib (MEK inhibitor) in people with BRAF^V600-mutant NSCLC that had spread to other parts of the body ('metastatic disease'). People are monitored for side effects and to see if their tumor shrunk. PHAROS includes people treated with encorafenib plus binimetinib as their first treatment for metastatic disease, and people whose cancer progressed after previous anticancer therapy. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03915951) and EudraCT (2019-000417-37).

Talazoparib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Enrolled in Asian Countries: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated study outcomes in patients enrolled in Asian regions in the phase III EMBRACA trial of talazoparib vs. chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative germline BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer who received prior chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to talazoparib 1 mg/day or chemotherapy (physician's choice). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy/safety endpoints in the ITT population of patients enrolled in Asian regions. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled at Asian sites (talazoparib, n=23; chemotherapy, n=10). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable with the overall EMBRACA population. In Asian patients, median PFS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 15.2) for talazoparib and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.2 to not reached) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.44]). Objective response rate was numerically higher for talazoparib vs. chemotherapy (62.5% [95% CI, 35.4 to 84.8] vs. 25.0% [95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1]). Median overall survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 40.1) versus 21.2 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 35.0) (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.49 to 4.05]). In Asian patients, fewer grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), grade 3/4 SAEs, and AEs resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation occurred with talazoparib than chemotherapy; for talazoparib, the frequency of these events was lower in Asian patients versus overall EMBRACA population. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis, talazoparib numerically improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients, with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AE (TEAEs), SAEs, and TEAEs leading to dose modification vs. the overall EMBRACA population.

Antitumor activity of crizotinib in lung cancers harboring a MET exon 14 alteration.

MET exon 14 alterations are oncogenic drivers of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs)1. These alterations are associated with increased MET activity and preclinical sensitivity to MET inhibition2. Crizotinib is a multikinase inhibitor with potent activity against MET3. The antitumor activity and safety of crizotinib were assessed in 69 patients with advanced NSCLCs harboring MET exon 14 alterations. Objective response rate was 32% (95% confidence interval (CI), 21-45) among 65 response-evaluable patients. Objective responses were observed independent of the molecular heterogeneity that characterizes these cancers and did not vary by splice-site region and mutation type of the MET exon 14 alteration, concurrent increased MET copy number or the detection of a MET exon 14 alteration in circulating tumor DNA. The median duration of response was 9.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-12.7). The median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 5.4-9.1). MET exon 14 alteration defines a molecular subgroup of NSCLCs for which MET inhibition with crizotinib is active. These results address an unmet need for targeted therapy in people with lung cancers with MET exon 14 alterations and adds to an expanding list of genomically driven therapies for oncogenic subsets of NSCLC.

Renal Effects of Crizotinib in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively analyzed the effects of crizotinib on serum creatinine and creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced NSCLC across four trials (NCT00585195, NCT00932451, NCT00932893, and NCT01154140). METHODS: Changes from baseline data in serum creatinine and eGFR, calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine-based equation, were assessed over time. eGFR was graded using standard chronic kidney disease criteria. RESULTS: Median serum creatinine increased from 0.79 mg/dL at baseline to 0.93 mg/dL after 2 weeks of treatment (median percentage increase from baseline, 21.2%), was stable from week 12 (0.96 mg/dL) to week 104 (1.00 mg/dL), and decreased to 0.90 mg/dL at 28 days after last dose (median percentage increase from baseline, 13.1%). Median eGFR decreased over time (96.42, 80.23, 78.06 and 75.45 mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline, week 2, week 12, and week 104, respectively) and increased to 83.02 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 28 days after the last dose. Median percentage decrease from baseline was 14.9%, 17.0%, and 10.4% at week 2, week 12, and 28 days after last dose of crizotinib, respectively. Overall, 12.6% of patients had a shift from eGFR grade less than or equal to 3a (≥45 mL/min/1.73 m2) at baseline to greater than or equal to 3b (<45 mL/min/1.73 m2) post-baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib resulted in a decline in creatinine-based estimates of renal function mostly over the first 2 weeks of treatment. However, there was minimal evidence of cumulative effects with prolonged treatment and these changes were largely reversible following treatment discontinuation, consistent with previous reports suggesting this may be predominantly an effect on creatinine secretion as opposed to true nephrotoxicity.

Comparison of cardiovascular effects of crizotinib and chemotherapy in ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

AIM: We analyzed cardiac function in two Phase III studies of previously treated (PROFILE 1007) or untreated (PROFILE 1014) ALK-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS & METHODS: Adverse events associated with cardiac failure were compared between treatment arms in each study separately. Cardiac function was assessed prospectively by multigated acquisition scans or echocardiograms. RESULTS: In PROFILE 1007 and 1014, incidence of cardiac failure adverse events was 0% (crizotinib) versus 0.6% (chemotherapy) and 2.3% versus 0.6%, respectively. In crizotinib versus chemotherapy arms, respectively, >20% left ventricular ejection fraction decreases occurred in 0/19 (0%) versus 1/16 (6.3%) patients from PROFILE 1007 and 4/150 (2.7%) versus 10/150 (6.7%) patients from PROFILE 1014. CONCLUSION: These analyses did not reveal any clinically meaningful changes in myocardial function with crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: PROFILE 1007, NCT00932893; PROFILE 1014, NCT01154140.

Final Overall Survival Analysis From a Study Comparing First-Line Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy in ALK-Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Purpose The phase III PROFILE 1014 trial compared crizotinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) -positive advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) results. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 172) or intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 5 to 6 mg·mL/min) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles (n = 171). Crossover to crizotinib was permitted after disease progression. OS was analyzed using a stratified log-rank test and a prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for crossover. Results Median follow-up duration for OS was approximately 46 months for both arms. In the chemotherapy arm, 144 patients (84.2%) received crizotinib in subsequent lines. Hazard ratio for OS was 0.760 (95% CI, 0.548 to 1.053; two-sided P = .0978). Median OS was not reached (NR) with crizotinib (95% CI, 45.8 months to NR) and 47.5 months with chemotherapy (95% CI, 32.2 months to NR). Survival probability at 4 years was 56.6% (95% CI, 48.3% to 64.1%) with crizotinib and 49.1% (95% CI, 40.5% to 57.1%) with chemotherapy. After crossover adjustment, there was an improvement in OS that favored crizotinib (hazard ratio, 0.346; 95% bootstrap CI, 0.081 to 0.718). The longest OS was observed in crizotinib-treated patients who received a subsequent ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion The final analysis of the PROFILE 1014 study provides a new benchmark for OS in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer and highlights the benefit of crizotinib for prolonging survival in this patient population.

Phase II Study of Crizotinib in East Asian Patients With ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Purpose Approximately 1% to 2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) harbor a c-ros oncogene 1 ( ROS1) rearrangement. Crizotinib, an inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), ROS1, and MET, has shown marked antitumor activity in a small expansion cohort of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC from an ongoing phase I study. We assessed the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the largest cohort of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC. Patients and Methods This phase II, open-label, single-arm trial enrolled East Asian patients with ROS1-positive (assessed through validated AmoyDx assay [Amoy Diagnostics, Xiamen, China] at three regional laboratories) advanced NSCLC who had received three or fewer lines of prior systemic therapies. Patients were to receive oral crizotinib at a starting dose of 250 mg twice daily and continued treatment until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1-defined progression (by independent radiology review [IRR]), unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by IRR. Results In the efficacy and safety analyses, 127 patients were included, with 49.6% still receiving treatment at data cutoff. ORR by IRR was 71.7% (95% CI, 63.0% to 79.3%), with 17 complete responses and 74 partial responses. ORRs were similar irrespective of the number of prior lines of therapy, and responses were durable (median duration of response, 19.7 months; 95% CI, 14.1 months to not reached). Median progression-free survival by IRR was 15.9 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 24.0 months). No new safety signals associated with crizotinib were reported. Conclusion This study demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit and durable responses with crizotinib in East Asian patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC. Crizotinib was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports.

Evaluation of hepatic impairment on pharmacokinetics and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase 1 study evaluated the effect of hepatic impairment on pharmacokinetics and safety of crizotinib in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients were dosed according to hepatic function classified by modified National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group criteria and group assignment [normal (A1 and A2), mild (B), moderate (C1 and C2), or severe (D)]. Primary pharmacokinetic endpoints included area under the concentration-time curve as daily exposure (AUCdaily) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) at steady state. Safety endpoints included types, incidence, seriousness, and relationship to crizotinib of adverse events. RESULTS: The AUCdaily and Cmax in patients with normal liver function were 7107 ng h/mL and 375.1 ng/mL (A1) and 5422 ng h/mL and 283.9 ng/mL (A2), respectively. The AUCdaily and Cmax ratios of adjusted geometric means for Groups B, C2, and D versus Group A1 were 91.12 and 91.20, 114.08 and 108.87, and 64.47 and 72.63, respectively. Any grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 75% of patients; grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 25%, including fatigue (6%), hyponatremia (5%), and hyperbilirubinemia (3%). CONCLUSIONS: No adjustment to the approved 250 mg twice daily (BID) dose of crizotinib is recommended for patients with mild hepatic impairment. The recommended dose is 200 mg BID for patients with moderate hepatic impairment, and the dose should not exceed 250 mg daily for patients with severe hepatic impairment. Adverse events appeared consistent among the hepatic impairment groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT01576406.

Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in Asian Patients with ALK-Positive Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib has demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs) versus chemotherapy in previously treated and untreated patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the safety and efficacy of crizotinib in Asian subpopulations of two global phase III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis evaluated previously treated and untreated patients in two randomized, openlabel phase III trials of crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in second-line (PROFILE 1007) and first-line settings (PROFILE 1014). Efficacy and safety were analyzed by race in the intention-to-treat and "as-treated" populations for efficacy and safety endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: In previously treated (n=157) and untreated (n=157) Asian patients, PFS was statistically significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio for PFS, 0.526; 95% confidence interval, 0.363 to 0.762; p < 0.001 and hazard ratio, 0.442; 95% confidence interval, 0.302 to 0.648; p < 0.001, respectively). Similar antitumor activity was seen in the non-Asian and overall populations. ORRs were statistically significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both Asian and non-Asian previously treated and untreated patients (p < 0.05). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade)with crizotinib were vision disorder, diarrhea, and nausea, which were observed at a comparable incidence across Asian and non-Asian populations, irrespective of previous treatment status. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: These data, currently the only analysis showing Asian and non-Asian populations in the same study, support the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in Asian patients with previously treated or untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Phase I Results from a Study of Crizotinib in Combination with Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This phase I trial was conducted to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase II dose, and efficacy of crizotinib plus erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 after failure of one or two prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. Erlotinib, 100 mg, was given continuously once daily starting between day -14 and -7; crizotinib, 200 mg twice daily (dose level 1) or 150 mg twice daily (dose level -1), was added continuously beginning on day 1 of treatment cycle 1. Potential pharmacokinetic interactions between crizotinib and erlotinib were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients received treatment; 26 received crizotinib plus erlotinib. Frequent adverse events were diarrhea, rash, decreased appetite, and fatigue. Dose-limiting toxicities were dehydration, diarrhea, dry eye, dysphagia, dyspepsia, esophagitis and vomiting. The MTD was crizotinib, 150 mg twice daily, with erlotinib, 100 mg once daily. Crizotinib increased the erlotinib area under the concentration-time curve 1.5-fold (dose level -1) and 1.8-fold (dose level 1). The plasma level of crizotinib appeared to be unaffected by coadministration of erlotinib. Two patients whose tumors harbored activating EGFR mutations achieved confirmed partial responses, one at each crizotinib dose level. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of the combination of crizotinib and erlotinib in patients with advanced NSCLC was crizotinib, 150 mg twice daily, with erlotinib, 100 mg once daily, which is less than the approved dose of either agent. The phase II portion of the study was not initiated.

Intracranial Efficacy of Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From PROFILE 1014.

PURPOSE: Intracranial efficacy of first-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy was compared prospectively in the phase III PROFILE 1014 study in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 172) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin at area under the curve 5 to 6, every 3 weeks for ≤ six cycles; n = 171). Patients with stable treated brain metastases (tBM) were eligible. Intracranial efficacy was assessed at baseline and every 6 or 12 weeks in patients with or without known brain metastases (BM), respectively; intracranial time to tumor progression (IC-TTP; per protocol) and intracranial disease control rate (IC-DCR; post hoc) were measured. The intent-to-treat population was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 343 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 23% had tBM at baseline. A nonsignificant IC-TTP improvement was observed with crizotinib in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P = .069), patients with tBM (HR, 0.45; P = .063), and patients without BM (HR, 0.69; P = .323). Among patients with tBM, IC-DCR was significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy at 12 weeks (85% v 45%, respectively; P < .001) and 24 weeks (56% v 25%, respectively; P = .006). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both subgroups (tBM present: HR, 0.40; P < .001; median, 9.0 v 4.0 months, respectively; BM absent: HR, 0.51; P < .001; median, 11.1 v 7.2 months, respectively) and in the intent-to-treat population (HR, 0.45; P < .001; median, 10.9 v 7.0 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib demonstrated a significantly higher IC-DCR in patients with tBM. Improvements in IC-TTP were not statistically significant in patients with or without tBM, although sensitivity to detect treatment differences in or between the two subgroups was low.

First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib as compared with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 343 patients with advanced ALK-positive nonsquamous NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily or to receive intravenous chemotherapy (pemetrexed, 500 mg per square meter of body-surface area, plus either cisplatin, 75 mg per square meter, or carboplatin, target area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Crossover to crizotinib treatment after disease progression was permitted for patients receiving chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent radiologic review. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib than with chemotherapy (median, 10.9 months vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.60; P<0.001). Objective response rates were 74% and 45%, respectively (P<0.001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (hazard ratio for death with crizotinib, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26; P=0.36); the probability of 1-year survival was 84% with crizotinib and 79% with chemotherapy. The most common adverse events with crizotinib were vision disorders, diarrhea, nausea, and edema, and the most common events with chemotherapy were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. As compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib was associated with greater reduction in lung cancer symptoms and greater improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib was superior to standard first-line pemetrexed-plus-platinum chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Pfizer; PROFILE 1014 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01154140.).

An exploratory study of sunitinib in combination with docetaxel and trastuzumab as first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This exploratory study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of sunitinib combined with docetaxel and trastuzumab. METHODS: Patients with unresectable, locally recurrent or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+ breast cancer received sunitinib plus docetaxel and trastuzumab. Sunitinib was administered at 37.5 mg/day for 2 weeks on treatment followed by 1 week off (Schedule 2/1). The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients enrolled; 24 received at least one dose of sunitinib plus docetaxel and trastuzumab, and one patient received one dose of docetaxel and trastuzumab only. These 25 treated patients were evaluable for safety. Twenty-three patients discontinued the study, primarily due to disease progression. The planned dose of sunitinib was maintained in 10 patients and reduced at least once to 25 mg/day in 14 patients. The most common grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events were fatigue/asthenia (28%), diarrhea (16%), stomatitis (12%), vomiting (8%) and dyspnea (8%). Neutropenia was reported in all 24 evaluable patients; most events were grade 4. Three grade 1-3 cardiac adverse events occurred. Sunitinib and docetaxel levels were consistent with known single-agent levels, suggesting that there were no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Of 22 evaluable patients, 16 (73%) experienced an objective response (all confirmed partial responses). CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib combined with docetaxel and trastuzumab had an acceptable toxicity profile and showed preliminary antitumor activity as first-line treatment for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer.

Sunitinib plus erlotinib for the treatment of advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a lead-in study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib. Subjects with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer had received prior treatment with a platinum-based regimen. Here, we report safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of the combination of sunitinib and erlotinib. METHODS: Lead-in subjects in this phase II study received sunitinib 37.5 mg/d and erlotinib 150 mg/d. Safety, including dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs, cohort 1 only), pharmacokinetic profiles, and antitumor activity were investigated (cohorts 1 and 2). RESULTS: Thirty patients were evaluated. The combination of sunitinib and erlotinib was tolerable. Diarrhea (76.9%), fatigue (61.5%), and decreased appetite (53.8%) were the most frequent adverse events in cohort 1; and diarrhea (52.9%) and rash (41.2%) were the most frequent adverse events in cohort 2. DLTs were observed (fatigue, n = 2 and paronychial inflammation, n = 1) in three of 13 patients evaluated for DLTs. Geometric mean ratios for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under plasma concentration-time profile from time 0 to 24 hours of erlotinib with and without sunitinib were 1.05 and 1.03, respectively. Corresponding values for sunitinib with and without erlotinib were 0.62 and 0.62 for sunitinib, 2.13 and 2.07 for SU12662; and 0.81 and 0.79 for total drug. Three patients experienced partial response as per response evaluation criteria in solid tumor. CONCLUSION: A dosage of sunitinib 37.5 mg/d concurrently with erlotinib 150 mg/d was tolerable and established the recommended combinatorial dose in subjects with platinum-refractory non-small-cell lung cancer. Coadministration of sunitinib with erlotinib does not affect the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib, but may result in decreased exposure to sunitinib.

Phase II study of sunitinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and irradiated brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Brain metastases frequently cause significant morbidity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sunitinib is a multitargeted inhibitor of tyrosine kinase receptors, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, which has single-agent antitumor activity in refractory NSCLC. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of sunitinib in patients with pretreated NSCLC and irradiated brain metastases. METHODS: Patients received sunitinib 37.5 mg on a continuous daily dosing schedule. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety, including risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) associated with focal neurological deficit. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients received sunitinib (median age 61 years), most (83%) had received prior systemic therapy, 63% had adenocarcinoma, and 19% had squamous cell carcinoma; most (55%) were never-smokers. Median progression-free survival was 9.4 weeks (90% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5-13.1), and median overall survival was 25.1 weeks (95% CI: 13.4-35.5). The most common treatment-emergent (all-causality) nonhematologic toxicities (any grade) were fatigue (38%) and decreased appetite and constipation (both 25%). The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities were dyspnea (9%) and fatigue (8%). Lymphopenia (20%) and neutropenia (13%) were the most common grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities. Serious neurologic adverse events occurred in six patients (9%), and none were treatment-related. No cases of ICH were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib administration on a continuous daily dosing schedule in patients with NSCLC and brain metastases was safe and manageable, with no increased risk of ICH.