SAPPHIRE: phase III study of sitravatinib plus nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy revolutionized treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, most patients progress due to primary or acquired resistance. Sitravatinib is a receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that can shift the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment toward an immunostimulatory state. Combining sitravatinib with nivolumab (sitra + nivo) may potentially overcome initial CPI resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase III SAPPHIRE study, patients with advanced non-oncogenic driven, nonsquamous NSCLC who initially benefited from (≥4 months on CPI without progression) and subsequently experienced disease progression on or after CPI combined with or following platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to sitra (100 mg once daily administered orally) + nivo (240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks administered intravenously) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks administered intravenously). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DOR; all assessed by blinded independent central review), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 577 patients included randomized: sitra + nivo, n = 284; docetaxel, n = 293 (median follow-up, 17.1 months). Sitra + nivo did not significantly improve OS versus docetaxel [median, 12.2 versus 10.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.05; P = 0.144]. The median PFS was 4.4 versus 5.4 months, respectively (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89-1.32; P = 0.452). The ORR was 15.6% for sitra + nivo and 17.2% for docetaxel (P = 0.597); CBR was 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively (P = 0.004); median DOR was 7.4 versus 7.1 months, respectively (P = 0.924). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 53.0% versus 66.7% of patients receiving sitra + nivo versus docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although median OS was numerically longer with sitra + nivo, the primary endpoint was not met in patients with previously treated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. The safety profiles demonstrated were consistent with previous reports.

Immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of an International Experts Panel Meeting by the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT).

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is currently the standard of care. However, as clinical trials include a very limited number of elderly patients, evidence on the safety and efficacy of using ICI-based regimens is still limited. METHODS: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2022 to review the available evidence on the use of ICI-based regimens in the first-line setting in elderly patients with NSCLC and provide a position paper on the field both in clinical practice and in a research setting. RESULTS: All panelists agreed that age per se is not a limitation for ICI treatments, as the elderly should be considered only as a surrogate for other clinical factors of frailty. Overall, ICI efficacy in the elderly population is supported by reviewed data. In addition, the panelists were confident that available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in elderly patients with NSCLC. Conversely, concerns were expressed on the safety of chemo + ICI-based combination, which were considered mainly related to the toxicities of chemotherapy components. Therefore, suggestions were proposed to tailor combined approaches in the elderly patients with NSCLC. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to implementing the real-world assessment of elderly patients treated with ICIs, who are mostly underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the significant limitations affecting the clinical practice in elderly patients affected by NSCLC, and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting.

Safety of mRNA-COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients With Thoracic Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal trials of COVID-19 vaccines did not include cancer patients with questions remaining in this population. Particularly in patients with thoracic malignancies receiving anticancer treatments, the safety of these vaccines has so far been little investigated. METHODS: This is a prospective trial of patients with thoracic cancer receiving anticancer treatments and COVID-19 vaccines at the Division of Thoracic Oncology of European Institute of Oncology between February and September 2021. RESULTS: A total 207 patients affected by thoracic cancers (199 lung cancers and 8 mesotheliomas) had received Covid-19 vaccines (206 mRNA vaccines and 1 virus-vectored vaccine). The majority of patients had at least one comorbidity (76.3%). They were concomitantly treating with targeted therapy (TT) (45.9%), immunotherapy (IO) (22.7%), and chemotherapy (CT) (14%). A total of 64 AEs (15.6%) were observed after administration of Sars-Cov-2 vaccine. The majority of AEs were grade 1 [G1] (6.3%) and G2 (8.8%), only two events were G3 (0.5%). The median follow-up was 9 months (range 1-22 months), during this follow-up 21 patients (10.1%) had a positive nasal swab, most of the patients were asymptomatic (67%) and the symptomatic ones (33%) had mild symptoms and fewer complications and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 m-RNA vaccines appear to be safe in the cohort of patients with thoracic malignances in active treatment, including those receiving immunotherapy. Considering the high morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer receiving active treatments, our study supports the current vaccine prioritization, third and/or fourth dose, of all cancer patients with active treatment.

The value of disease-free survival (DFS) and osimertinib in adjuvant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): an international Delphi consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Rates of disease recurrence and death following surgery remain high in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite adjuvant treatment and curative intent. Recently, osimertinib showed overwhelming evidence for disease-free survival (DFS), as demonstrated by an overall reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in the adjuvant setting of 80% versus control in the ADAURA study (stage IB-IIIA; hazard ratio 0.20; 99.12% confidence interval 0.14-0.30; P < 0.001). However, due to the early unblinding of ADAURA and lack of mature overall survival data, there is a need to qualitatively confirm consensus on the clinical and patient relevance of DFS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi panel study consisting of two rounds of surveys, followed by a consensus meeting. An international panel of experts in the field of NSCLC and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) (n = 13) was asked to rate agreement and comment on a list of pre-defined statements covering key consensus gaps. Statements were eliminated or updated between surveys, depending on the level of agreement. A final list of agreed-upon statements was drafted in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 32 qualitative statements, with topics including unmet needs in early-stage NSCLC, the value of DFS, and the value of osimertinib. Crucially, DFS was agreed to be a clinically and patient-relevant endpoint in adjuvant NSCLC. The relevance of DFS was found to relate to the ability of an adjuvant therapy, such as osimertinib, to keep patients in the clinically valuable curative intent setting, while preventing the burden associated with distant and locoregional recurrence, and progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the need for measures that reflect clinical benefit is essential to continue improving outcomes for NSCLC patients. To that end, this work provides a qualitative framework for clinicians to consider the clinical and patient relevance of DFS in adjuvant NSCLC and the benefit demonstrated in ADAURA thus far.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the management of EGFR mutant non-small-cell lung cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

First-line immunotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with ECOG performance status 2: results of an International Expert Panel Meeting by the Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy represents the standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy in high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (≥50%) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. However, most pivotal clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) did not include patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. Hence, a consensus is lacking on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this specific subgroup of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2021 with the aim of reviewing the available evidence on the use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS 2, both in clinical practice and in a research setting. RESULTS: All panelists expressed concern about the applicability of currently available PS scales to evaluate patients for ICI treatment. The panelists agreed that, though limited, the available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in PS 2 NSCLC patients, whereas concern was raised on the safety of ICI combinations, mainly related to chemotherapy and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 toxicity. On the basis of reviewed data, ICI efficacy may be speculated in PS 2 NSCLC patients; however, PS 2 remains a negative prognostic category as compared to PS 0-1 in patients treated with ICI, as it is for chemotherapy. The panelists defined high, medium and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to the inclusion of PS 2 patients in prospective clinical trials and the specific evaluation of combined ICI treatments with attenuated chemotherapy doses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the major limitations affecting PS 2 patients with NSCLC and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting.

Metronomic oral vinorelbine in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy: results of the randomized phase II Tempo Lung trial.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy and safety of a metronomic schedule of oral vinorelbine (mVNR) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients unfit for platinum-based combination chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label phase II study in treatment-naive patients with TNM stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Patients received mVNR at a fixed dose of 50 mg × 3 or standard schedule 60-80 mg/m2 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS; NCI-CTC v4). Main secondary objectives were safety, disease control rate (DCR) without grade 4 toxicity (G4DCR), DCR, PFS, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included, 83 and 84 patients in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. The median G4PFS was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-4.3] and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-2.9), hazard ration (HR) = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.88), P = 0.0068 in favor of metronomic arm; G4DCR was 45.8% and 26.8% in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent in the mVNR arm (25.3% versus 54.4%) mainly owing to a reduction in all grades (15.7% versus 51.9%) and grade 3-4 neutropenia (10.8% versus 42%). PFS was 4.3 (95% CI: 3.3-5.1) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.2) in mVNR and standard arms, respectively. No difference in median OS was observed. QoL was comparable between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Metronomic oral vinorelbine significantly prolonged median G4PFS in advanced NSCLC patients unfit for platinum combinations as first-line treatment. It was associated with a clear reduction in toxicity and may be considered as an important option in this challenging population.

Lung carcinoids with high proliferative activity: Further support for the identification of a new tumor category in the classification of lung neuroendocrine neoplasms.

Highly proliferative lung carcinoids (HPLC) have been recently reported but information about this subset remains scarce. OBJECTIVES: Clinical and pathological data of 630 patients with lung carcinoids (LC) referred to Gustave Roussy Institute (GR) and European Institute of Oncology (IEO) were retrospectively reviewed to select HPLC and analyze their frequency, behavior and compare their outcome to conventional LC with Ki-67 ≤ 20 % and mitotic count (MC)≤10/2 mm2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selection criteria were: diagnosis of LC confirmed by local pathologist, and available clinical and follow-up data. Patients with Ki-67 > 20 % and/or MC > 10/ 2 mm2 in primary or metastatic specimens were identified as HPLC. RESULTS: 30/514 patients (6%) met the selection criteria of HPLC. Based on primary tumor evaluation, 22/25 (88 %) were classified as atypical carcinoids (AC). Median MC was 4.5/2 mm2 (1-11) 6/2 mm2 (3-15) in primary tumors and metastasis, respectively. Median Ki-67 was respectively 23 % (15-65) and 25 % (8-60). Recurrence rate was 66 % (12/18) in HPLC and 9 % (33/352) in conventional LC. Median RFS was 24 (10-NR) months in HPLC, 288 (141-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index≤5 % and NR (148-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 6-20% (p < 001). Median OS was 203 (83-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index≤5%, 101 (79-NR) months in LC with Ki-67 index 6-20 % and 53 (39-NR) months in HPLC (p = 002). Among 20 metastatic patients with HPLC, median PFS under platinum-based chemotherapy, everolimus, alkylating-based chemotherapy, FOLFOX and PRRT was 5.1 (95 % CI 0.7-9.4), 12.1(95 %CI 0.3-24), 6.8 (95 % CI 0-14.9), 10.2 (95 % CI 0.4-19.9) and 14.2 months (95 % CI 0-30) respectively. Best response was stable disease (SD) under platinum-based chemotherapy and partial response (PR) under alkylating-based chemotherapy and FOLFOX. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the existence and rarity of HPLC. Their characteristics and clinical behavior are more similar to LC rather than neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), suggesting that this entity could be managed accordingly.

Choice of second-line systemic therapy in stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) - A decision-making analysis amongst European lung cancer experts.

OBJECTIVES: Stage IV small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with short survival and progression after first-line systemic therapy frequently occurs within months. Although topotecan is approved for second-line treatment, its efficacy is limited, and treatment heterogeneity exists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The decision-making patterns for second line treatment of 13 European medical oncologists with expertise in SCLC were analyzed. RESULTS: The two criteria most relevant to decision-making were the performance status and the interval of recurrence since first-line treatment. With an interval of less than 3 months since the end of first-line chemotherapy, 62 % of the experts recommended cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine (CAV) for fit patients and 54 % recommended topotecan for unfit patients. For an interval of more than 6 months, a clear consensus for a re-challenge with a platinum doublet was achieved (92 %). However, there was no consensus on the second-line therapy with an interval of 3-6 months since the end of first-line therapy. CONCLUSION: Real world practice may differ from recommendations in general guidelines and cannot always be directly derived from trial results as other factor such as habits, patient's preference, convenience or costs have to be factored in.

Treatment of brain metastases in small cell lung cancer: Decision-making amongst a multidisciplinary panel of European experts.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). In recent years, the role of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases in lung cancer is being reevaluated, especially in the context of new systemic treatments available for SCLC. With this analysis, we investigate decision-making in SCLC patients with BM among European experts in medical oncology and radiation oncology. METHODS: We analyzed decision-making from 13 medical oncologists (selected by IASLC) and 13 radiation oncologists (selected by ESTRO) specialized in SCLC. Management strategies of individual experts were converted into decision trees and analyzed for consensus. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients, chemotherapy alone is the most commonly recommended first line treatment. In asymptomatic patients with limited volume of brain metastases, a higher preference for chemotherapy without WBRT among medical oncologists compared to radiation oncologists was observed. For symptomatic patients, WBRT followed by chemotherapy was recommended most commonly. For limited extent of BM in symptomatic patients, some experts chose stereotactic radiotherapy as an alternative to WBRT. Significant variation in clinical decision-making was observed among European SCLC experts for the first line treatment of patients with SCLC and BM.

Lung optimized treatment with CyberKnife® in inoperable lung cancer patients: feasibility analysis of a mono-institutional 115 patient series.

CyberKnife® Lung Optimized Treatment (LOT) allows the treatment of lung cancer without invasive fiducial implantation. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity and clinical outcome. One hundred fifteen patients (124 lesions) were treated with CyberKnife® using LOT. The median age was 72.6 years (range 31.8-90.3). From 124 treated lesions, 52 were with histopathological confirmation (41 primitive pulmonary cancers, 8 pulmonary metastases) and 72 as untyped tumors. For 5 patients (6 lesions) treatment was an in-field re-irradiation. Concomitant therapy was administered in 7 patients. Zero-View tracking was applied in 69 patients, 1-View in 33 patients, 2-View in 22 patients. The median total dose was 45 Gy (range 18-54), median dose/fraction was 15 Gy (range 4-18) with a median prescription isodose of 80% (range 68-85). The median planning target volume (PTV) was 25 cm3 (range 3-195). The median follow-up was 20 months (range 7-47). Thirty-seven patients (32%) were alive with no evidence of disease, 39 patients (34%) were alive with clinically evident disease, and 38 patients (33%) died of the disease. The 1- and 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 83% and 61%. The median time to progression was 19 months (95% confidence interval: 11-19 months), 1- and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 62% and 41%, respectively. Smaller PTV was significantly associated with better OS, PFS and in-field PFS in univariate and multivariate analyses. Acute toxicity was observed in 36 patients (41%). Late toxicity was registered in 25 patients (29%). G3 late toxicity was observed in one patient (1.1%). Our data suggest that fiducial less-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a feasible, well-tolerated and potentially effective treatment with high compliance in the setting of inoperable patients due to concomitant disease or previous treatments.

Correction to: Gr-MDSC-linked asset as a potential immune biomarker in pretreated NSCLC receiving nivolumab as second-line therapy.

Acknowledgements section was missing.

Gr-MDSC-linked asset as a potential immune biomarker in pretreated NSCLC receiving nivolumab as second-line therapy.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy is a new standard first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) with high programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%) and second-line treatment regardless of PD-L1 status, though not all patients benefit from this approach. Much effort is ongoing to identify robust prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, overcoming PD-L1 that appears limited in its ability to discriminate patient candidates to this new class of anticancer agents. The purpose of this research study is to identify potential new biomarkers for immunotherapy in lung cancer. METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab were enrolled in the study. All the patients received a blood analysis looking for the relationship between different populations of baseline white blood cells and granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (Gr-MDSC) detected by flow cytometry, to identify and characterize patients with poor likelihood of benefit from nivolumab in NSCLC second-line setting, regardless of clinical feature and PDL1 expression. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that high baseline levels of Gr-MDSC and low baseline CD8/Gr-MDSC ratio are associated with significantly better (P = 0.02) response to immunotherapy treatment. Log-rank tests suggested a significant improvement in OS and PFS with high baseline levels of Gr-MDSC levels (≥ 6 cell/µl), low absolute neutrophil count (< 5840/µl), high eosinophil count (> 90 /µl), and NLR < 3. The multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant improvement for PFS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.05) in favour of the identified good prognostic Gr-MDSC-linked asset group, compared with the poor prognosis group. CONCLUSION: The role of Gr-MDSC appears interesting as a potential biomarker in NSCLC patients receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Further analyses are needed to confirmed and study in deep the role of these particular cells and their role in cancer response and progression during ICI therapy.

CNS response to osimertinib in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: pooled data from two phase II trials.

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261). Patients and methods: Patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Of 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39-68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81-98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1-15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53-88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population. Conclusions: Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01802632; NCT02094261.

Brigatinib for the treatment of ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Brigatinib (AP-26113, Alunbrig) is a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that is highly active in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring ALK translocation. Brigatinib was found to be very active against different ALK resistance mutations that mediate acquired resistance biology processes, particularly G1269A ALK C1156Y, I1171S/T, V1180L and others. Different clinical trials evaluated the activity of brigatinib in crizotinib-resistant patients, confirming high activity with durable response not only in parenchymal disease, but also in intracranial disease. Nowadays, brigatinib is under evaluation in different clinical trials exploring TKI-naive patients in the first-line setting. On the basis of its significant activity results, brigatinib received approval by the FDA for the treatment of patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC who have progressed on or are intolerant to crizotinib.

Afatinib beyond progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer following chemotherapy, erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib: phase III randomized LUX-Lung 5 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. CONCLUSION: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Efficacy and safety of maintenance pemetrexed in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer following pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction treatment: A cross-trial comparison of two phase III trials.

OBJECTIVES: Two phase III trials of advanced NSCLC patients were compared to examine relative efficacy and safety of differing treatment regimens. The JMDB trial investigated first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin (pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75mg/m(2) every 21 days; maximum: 6 cycles). The PARAMOUNT phase III trial compared maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo after patients with nonsquamous NSCLC completed 4 cycles of first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin without disease progression. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods, and toxicity rates were compared between the PARAMOUNT arms and a selected homogeneous population from JMDB: 346 patients with disease and prior treatment characteristics matching the PARAMOUNT population. RESULTS: Outcomes for the PARAMOUNT placebo arm were similar to the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 5.6 versus 6.2 months, p=0.117, HR=1.16; median OS: 14.0 versus 14.2 months, p=0.979, HR=1.00). The PARAMOUNT maintenance pemetrexed group had statistically superior efficacy compared with the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 7.5 versus 6.2 months, p<0.00001, HR=0.66; median OS: 16.9 versus 14.2 months, p=0.003, HR=0.75). Patients who received pemetrexed maintenance (median 4 cycles, range 1-44) following 4 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin exhibited a higher incidence of drug-related serious adverse events compared with JMDB patients (median 6 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin) (10.6% versus 2.9%); grade 3/4 fatigue and renal toxicity were also higher in the pemetrexed arm of PARAMOUNT. CONCLUSIONS: The across-trial comparison of a relevant JMDB study population with the two arms of the PARAMOUNT study supported the efficacy of the pemetrexed continuation maintenance strategy and suggested the results are not influenced by limiting the pemetrexed-cisplatin induction treatment to four cycles. Although longer exposure to pemetrexed-cisplatin or maintenance pemetrexed increased some toxicities, the overall incidence remained low, underscoring the relative safety of these treatment regimens.