Translational insights and overall survival in the U31402-A-U102 study of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) in EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) is broadly expressed in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is the target of patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd), an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a HER3 antibody attached to a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload via a tetrapeptide-based cleavable linker. U31402-A-U102 is an ongoing phase I study of HER3-DXd in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated NSCLC that progressed after EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) who received HER3-DXd 5.6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks had a confirmed objective response rate (cORR) of 39%. We present median overall survival (OS) with extended follow-up in a larger population of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and an exploratory analysis in those with acquired genomic alterations potentially associated with resistance to HER3-DXd. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Safety was assessed in patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC previously treated with EGFR TKI who received HER3-DXd 5.6 mg/kg; efficacy was assessed in those who also had prior PBC. RESULTS: In the safety population (N = 102), median treatment duration was 5.5 (range 0.7-27.5) months. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 76.5% of patients; the overall safety profile was consistent with previous reports. In 78/102 patients who had prior third-generation EGFR TKI and PBC, cORR by blinded independent central review (as per RECIST v1.1) was 41.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.0% to 52.7%], median progression-free survival was 6.4 (95% CI 4.4-10.8) months, and median OS was 16.2 (95% CI 11.2-21.9) months. Patients had diverse mechanisms of EGFR TKI resistance at baseline. At tumor progression, acquired mutations in ERBB3 and TOP1 that might confer resistance to HER3-DXd were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC after EGFR TKI and PBC, HER3-DXd treatment was associated with a clinically meaningful OS. The tumor biomarker characterization comprised the first description of potential mechanisms of resistance to HER3-DXd therapy.

Challenges in oncology career: are we closing the gender gap? Results of the new ESMO Women for Oncology Committee survey.

BACKGROUND: Following a European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) survey in 2016 showing severe under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles, ESMO launched a series of initiatives to address obstacles to gender equity. A follow-up survey in October 2021 investigated progress achieved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The W4O questionnaire 2021 expanded on the 2016 survey, with additional questions on the impact of ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion on career development. Results were analysed according to respondent gender and age. RESULTS: The survey sample was larger than in 2016 (n = 1473 versus 482), especially among men. Significantly fewer respondents had managerial or leadership roles than in 2016 (31.8% versus 51.7%). Lack of leadership development for women and unconscious bias were considered more important in 2021 than in 2016. In 2021, more people reported harassment in the workplace than in 2016 (50.3% versus 41.0%). In 2021, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion were considered to have little or no impact on professional career opportunities, salary setting or related potential pay gap. However, gender had a significant or major impact on career development (25.5% of respondents), especially in respondents ≤40 years of age and women. As in 2016, highest ranked initiatives to foster workplace equity were promotion of work-life balance, development and leadership training and flexible working. Significantly more 2021 respondents (mainly women) supported the need for culture and gender equity education at work than in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Gender remains a major barrier to career progression in oncology and, although some obstacles may have been reduced since 2016, we are a long way from closing the gender gap. Increased reporting of discrimination and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is a major, priority concern. The W4O 2021 survey findings provide new evidence and highlight the areas for future ESMO interventions to support equity and diversity in oncology career development.

Correlation between treatment effects on response rate and progression-free survival and overall survival in trials of targeted therapies in molecularly enriched populations.

BACKGROUND: The number of randomized trials of agents targeting oncogene-addicted tumors has surged in the past 10 years. Using a meta-analysis, we explored whether improvements in objective response rate (ORR) in comparative trials using targeted agents could serve as a potential surrogate endpoint for improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in populations with oncogene-addicted cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using commercial text mining software I2E, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE databases for randomized, phase III trials based on prospectively defined criteria, including (i) use of agents targeting EGFR activating mutations, ALK rearrangements, BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, and BCR-ABL fusion protein; (ii) molecularly enriched trial population or subpopulation; (iii) control arm only randomized to chemo/cytotoxic therapy. Correlative analyses were performed using ORR, OS, and PFS data from trials that met these criteria. RESULTS: A total of 62 trials were identified; 15 met all of the prespecified criteria. The ORR effect size (both the difference in ORR between arms and the log odds ratio) and log PFS hazard ratio were strongly correlated: -0.78 (P = 0.0007) for the ORR difference model; -0.74 (P = 0.0017) for the log odds ratio model. ORR effect size was positively correlated with the log OS hazard ratio, but more weakly: -0.67 (P = 0.013) for the ORR difference model and -0.58 (P = 0.036) for the log odds ratio model. Analysis of the treatment effects between OS and PFS found no correlation. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses identified a strong correlation between treatment effects on ORR and PFS in randomized clinical trials investigating agents targeting oncogene-driven cancers. A weaker correlation was observed between ORR and OS. These meta-analysis results support the use of a high ORR forming the basis of an initial regulatory approval in biomarker-driven studies.

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.

Female leadership in oncology-has progress stalled? Data from the ESMO W4O authorship and monitoring studies.

BACKGROUND: Exploratory research showed that female oncologists are frequently under-represented in leadership roles. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Women for Oncology (W4O) therefore implemented gender equality programs in career development and established international studies on female representation at all stages of the oncology career pathway. METHODS: For 2017-2019, data were collected on (i) first and last authorship of publications in five major oncology journals and (ii) representation of women in leadership positions in oncology-as invited speakers at National/International congresses, board members or presidents of National/International societies and ESMO members. The 2015/2016 data from the first published W4O Study were incorporated for comparisons. RESULTS: Across 2017-2019, female oncologists were significantly more likely to be first than last authors (P < 0.001). The proportion of female first authors was similar across years: 38.0% in 2017, 37.1% in 2018, 41.0% in 2019 (P = 0.063). The proportion of female last authors decreased from 30.4% in 2017 to 24.2% in 2018 (P = 0.0018) and increased to 28.5% in 2019 (P = 0.018). Across 2015-2019, invited speakers at International/National oncology congresses were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 29.7% in 2015 to 36.8% in 2019). Across 2016-2019, board members of International/National oncology societies were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 26.8% in 2016 to 35.8% in 2019). There were statistically significant increasing trends in female speakers and board members across the study periods (P < 0.001 for both). Societies with a female president had a higher proportion of female board members across these periods (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Reported progress towards gender equality in career development in oncology is real but slow. Women in leadership positions are essential for encouraging young women to aspire to and work towards similar or greater success. Therefore, continued monitoring is needed to inform ESMO W4O initiatives to promote gender balance at all stages of the career pathway.

Has COVID-19 had a greater impact on female than male oncologists? Results of the ESMO Women for Oncology (W4O) Survey.

BACKGROUND: European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) research has previously shown under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles. As early reports suggested disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women, the ESMO W4O Committee initiated a study on the impact of the pandemic on the lives of female and male oncologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to ESMO members and put on the ESMO website between 8 June 2020 and 2 July 2020. Questions focused on the working (hospital tasks, laboratory tasks, science) and home (household management, childcare, parent care, personal care) lives of oncologists during and after COVID-19-related lockdowns. RESULTS: Of 649 respondents, 541 completed the questionnaire. Of these, 58% reported that COVID-19 had affected their professional career, 83% of whom said this was in a negative way (85% of women versus 76% of men). Approximately 86% reported that COVID-19 had changed their personal life and 82% their family life. Women were again significantly more affected than men: personal life (89% versus 78%; P = 0.001); family life (84% versus 77%; P = 0.037). During lockdowns, women reported increased time spent on hospital and laboratory tasks compared with men (53% versus 46% and 33% versus 26%, respectively) and a significantly higher proportion of women than men spent less time on science (39% versus 25%) and personal care (58% versus 39%). After confinement, this trend remained for science (42% versus 23%) and personal care (55% versus 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the professional and home lives of oncologists, especially women. Reduced research time for female oncologists may have long-lasting career consequences, especially for those at key stages in their career. The gender gap for promotion to leadership positions may widen further as a result of the pandemic.

TATTON: a multi-arm, phase Ib trial of osimertinib combined with selumetinib, savolitinib, or durvalumab in EGFR-mutant lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Osimertinib is a potent, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). The multi-arm phase Ib TATTON study (NCT02143466) was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of osimertinib in combination with other targeted therapies: selumetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor), savolitinib (MET-TKI), or durvalumab [anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) monoclonal antibody]. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer and disease progression on a prior EGFR-TKI were enrolled and allocated to dose-escalating cohorts combining osimertinib 80 mg orally (p.o.) once a day with selumetinib (25-75 mg p.o. twice a day; continuous or intermittent), savolitinib (600-800 mg p.o. once a day), or durvalumab (3-10 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks). RESULTS: At data cut-off (28 February 2018), 77 patients were enrolled and received osimertinib plus selumetinib (n = 36), savolitinib (n = 18), or durvalumab (n = 23). Most common adverse events (any grade), occurring in ≥20% of patients across dose groups, were: selumetinib arm-diarrhea (75%), rash (58%), nausea (47%); savolitinib arm-nausea (67%), rash (56%), vomiting (50%); durvalumab arm-rash (48%), vomiting (43%), diarrhea (39%). Dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the selumetinib 25 mg (n = 1), 50 mg (n = 1), and 75 mg (n = 4) continuous-dose groups, savolitinib 600 mg (n = 1) and 800 mg dose groups (n = 2), and durvalumab 10 mg/kg (n = 1) dose group. The objective response rate was 42% (95% confidence interval 26% to 59%), 44% (22% to 69%), and 43% (23% to 66%) in the selumetinib, savolitinib, and durvalumab arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of combining osimertinib 80 mg with selumetinib or savolitinib at identified tolerable, active doses. A combination of osimertinib with durvalumab was not feasible due to increased reporting of interstitial lung disease. Osimertinib-based combination therapies represent a compelling approach now being further investigated. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02143466.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with locally-advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a KSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, ISMPO, JSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of early and locally-advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2017, and covered the diagnosis, staging, management and treatment of both early stage I and II disease and locally-advanced stage III disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018, it was decided by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) to convene a special face-to-face guidelines meeting in 2019 in Seoul. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2017 guidelines to take into account potential differences related to ethnicity, cancer biology and standard practices associated with the treatment of locally-advanced, unresectable NSCLC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by those experts in the treatment of patients with lung cancer who represented the oncology societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and it was independent of both local current treatment practices and the treatment availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a CSCO-ESMO initiative endorsed by JSMO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was published in 2016. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group Annual Meeting 2018, in Guangzhou, China. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic NSCLC cancer in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the six participating Asian countries. During the review process, the updated ESMO 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for metastatic NSCLC were released and were also considered, during the final stages of the development of the Pan-Asian adapted Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Overview of current systemic management of EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

Front-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) therapy is the standard of care for lung cancer patients with sensitising EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation). Several phase III studies have demonstrated the superiority of gefitinib, erlotinib (first generation of TKIs) or afatinib (second generation) to chemotherapy in progression-free survival and response rates. Drug-related toxicities, such as diarrhoea, acneiform skin rash, mucositis, and paronychia, are frequently encountered in patients who receive EGFR TKIs. Other rare side-effects, such as hepatic impairment and interstitial lung disease, should be identified early and managed carefully. Patients with uncommon EGFR mutations, such as G719X, S768I, and L861Q, may require special selection of EGFR TKIs. The combination of erlotinib plus bevacizumab has been accepted in certain parts of the world as an alternative front-line treatment. This review article summarizes the studies leading to the establishment of EGFR TKIs in EGFR-mutant lung cancer patients. The side-effect profiles of the current EGFR TKIs in these large trials are listed, and the management of uncommon EGFR mutations is discussed. Finally, the potential role of combination front-line treatment is discussed.

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.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study to compare the efficacy and safety of eribulin to treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin is a microtubule dynamics inhibitor with a novel mechanism of action. This phase 3 study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) in patients with heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving eribulin to treatment of physician's choice (TPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC who had received ≥2 prior therapies, including platinum-based doublet and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or TPC (gemcitabine, pemetrexed, vinorelbine, docetaxel). The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and objective response rate. RESULTS: Five hundred and forty patients were randomized to either eribulin (n = 270) or TPC (n = 270). Median OS for eribulin and TPC was the same: 9.5 months [hazard ratio (HR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.41; P = 0.13]. Progression-free survival for eribulin and TPC was 3.0 and 2.8 months, respectively (HR: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.90-1.32; P = 0.39). The objective response rate was 12% for eribulin and 15% for TPC. Clinical benefit rate (eribulin, 57%; TPC, 55%) and disease control rate (eribulin, 63%; TPC, 58%) were similar between treatment arms. The most common adverse event was neutropenia, which occurred in 57% of eribulin patients and 49% of TPC patients at all grades. Other non-hematologic side-effects were manageable and similar in both groups except for peripheral sensory neuropathy (all grades; eribulin, 16%; TPC, 9%). CONCLUSION: This phase 3 study did not demonstrate superiority of eribulin over TPC with regard to overall survival. However, eribulin does show activity in the third-line setting for NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: www.ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01454934.

Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial.

Background: In LUX-Lung 7, the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) versus gefitinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present primary analysis of mature overall survival (OS) data. Patients and methods: LUX-Lung 7 assessed afatinib 40 mg/day versus gefitinib 250 mg/day in treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion/L858R). Primary OS analysis was planned after ∼213 OS events and ≥32-month follow-up. OS was analysed by a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation type and baseline brain metastases. Results: Two-hundred and twenty-six OS events had occurred at the data cut-off (8 April 2016). After a median follow-up of 42.6 months, median OS (afatinib versus gefitinib) was 27.9 versus 24.5 months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66‒1.12, P = 0.2580]. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed similar OS trends (afatinib versus gefitinib) in patients with exon 19 deletion (30.7 versus 26.4 months; HR, 0.83, 95% CI 0.58‒1.17, P = 0.2841) and L858R (25.0 versus 21.2 months; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62‒1.36, P = 0.6585) mutations. Most patients (afatinib, 72.6%; gefitinib, 76.8%) had at least one subsequent systemic anti-cancer treatment following discontinuation of afatinib/gefitinib; 20 (13.7%) and 23 (15.2%) patients received a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib. Conclusion: In LUX-Lung 7, there was no significant difference in OS with afatinib versus gefitinib. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01466660.

Efficacy according to blind independent central review: Post-hoc analyses from the phase III, randomized, multicenter, IPASS study of first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC.

OBJECTIVE: The Phase III, randomized, open-label IPASS study (NCT00322452) of first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) showed that investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were significantly prolonged in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC who received gefitinib versus patients with EGFR mutation-negative NSCLC. We report post-hoc analyses of IPASS data by blind independent central review (BICR), performed at the request of the US FDA, in a subset of patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years; histologically/cytologically confirmed Stage IIB/IV adenocarcinoma NSCLC; non- or former light-smokers; treatment-naïve) were randomly assigned 1:1 to gefitinib (250mg/day) or carboplatin (dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg/mL/minute)/paclitaxel (200mg/m2). Primary endpoint: PFS. BICR analyses included PFS, ORR, and duration of response (DoR). RESULTS: Scans from 186 IPASS patients (gefitinib n=88, carboplatin/paclitaxel n=98) with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC were available for BICR. Consistent with investigator-assessed results, in patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC: PFS (hazard ratio 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38, 0.79; p=0.0012) and ORR (odds ratio 3.00; 95% CI 1.63, 5.54; p=0.0004) were significantly longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The median DoR by BICR was 9.6 months with gefitinib and 5.5 months with carboplatin/paclitaxel. CONCLUSION: BICR analysis of IPASS data support the original, investigator-assessed results. EGFR mutation-positive status remains a significant predictor of response to first-line TKI therapy.

Effect of dose adjustment on the safety and efficacy of afatinib for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma: post hoc analyses of the randomized LUX-Lung 3 and 6 trials.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib 40 mg/day is approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the case of drug-related grade ≥3 or selected prolonged grade 2 adverse events (AEs), the dose can be reduced by 10 mg decrements to a minimum of 20 mg. Here, we evaluate the influence of afatinib dose reduction on AEs, pharmacokinetics and progression-free survival (PFS) in the phase III LUX-Lung 3 and 6 (LL3/6) trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in LL3 (global) and LL6 (China, Thailand, South Korea) were randomized to afatinib or chemotherapy. All afatinib-treated patients (LL3, n = 229; LL6, n = 239) were included in the post hoc analyses. Incidence and severity of common AEs before and after afatinib dose reduction were assessed. Afatinib plasma concentrations were compared in patients who reduced to 30 mg versus those remaining at 40 mg. PFS was compared between patients who dose reduced within the first 6 months of treatment and those who did not. RESULTS: Dose reductions occurred in 53.3% (122/229) and 28.0% (67/239) of patients in LL3 and LL6, respectively; most (86.1% and 82.1%) within the first 6 months of treatment. Dose reduction led to decreases in the incidence of drug-related AEs, and was more likely in patients with higher afatinib plasma concentrations. On day 43, patients who dose reduced to 30 mg (n = 59) had geometric mean afatinib plasma concentrations of 23.3 ng/ml, versus 22.8 ng/ml in patients who remained on 40 mg (n = 284). The median PFS was similar in patients who dose reduced during the first 6 months versus those who did not {LL3: 11.3 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio (HR) 1.25]; LL6: 12.3 versus 11.0 months (HR 1.00)}. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerability-guided dose adjustment is an effective measure to reduce afatinib-related AEs without affecting therapeutic efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00949650 and NCT0112393.

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).

A phase I study of two dosing schedules of volasertib (BI 6727), an intravenous polo-like kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Polo-like kinase 1 (Plk1) has an important role in mitosis. Volasertib (BI 6727), a potent and selective cell cycle kinase inhibitor, induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Plk; this phase I study sought to determine its maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in Asian patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Patients were enrolled simultaneously into two 3-week schedules of volasertib: a 2-h infusion on day 1 (schedule A) or days 1 and 8 (schedule B). Dose escalation followed a 3+3 design. The MTD was determined based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) in the first treatment course. RESULTS: Among 59 treated patients, the most common first course DLTs were reversible thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia; MTDs were 300 mg for schedule A and 150 mg for schedule B. Volasertib exhibited multi-exponential pharmacokinetics (PK), a long terminal half-life of ∼135 h, a large volume of distribution (>3000 l), and a moderate clearance. Partial responses were observed in two pre-treated patients (ureteral cancer; melanoma). Volasertib was generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile consistent with its antimitotic mode of action and a favourable PK profile. CONCLUSIONS: These data support further development of volasertib and a harmonised dosing for Asian and Caucasian patients.

Nomogram to predict the presence of EGFR activating mutation in lung adenocarcinoma.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tumour genotyping is crucial to guide treatment decisions regarding the use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, some patients may not be able to obtain tumour testing, either because tissue is limited and/or tests are not routinely offered. Here, we aimed to build a model-based nomogram to allow for prediction of the presence of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. We retrospectively collected clinical and pathological data on 3,006 patients with NSCLC who had their tumours genotyped for EGFR mutations at five institutions worldwide. Variables of interest were integrated in a multivariate logistic regression model. In the 2,392 non-Asian patients with lung adenocarcinomas, the most important predictors of harbouring EGFR mutation were: lower tobacco smoking exposure (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.37-0.46), longer time interval between smoking cessation and diagnosis (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.71-2.80), advanced stage (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.18-2.13), and papillary (OR 4.57, 95% CI 3.14-6.66) or bronchioloalveolar (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.98-4.06) histologically predominant subtype. A nomogram was established and showed excellent discriminating accuracy: the concordance index on an independent validation dataset was 0.84. As clinical practices transition to incorporating genotyping as part of routine care, this nomogram could be highly useful to predict the presence of EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinoma in non-Asian patients when mutational profiling is not available or possible.