Antibody-drug conjugates in lung and breast cancer: current evidence and future directions-a position statement from the ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation.

Following the approval of the first antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the early 2000s, development has increased dramatically, with 14 ADCs now approved and >100 in clinical development. In lung cancer, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is approved in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-mutated, unresectable or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, with ADCs targeting HER3 (patritumab deruxtecan), trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 [datopotamab deruxtecan and sacituzumab govitecan (SG)] and mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (telisotuzumab vedotin) in late-stage clinical development. In breast cancer, several agents are already approved and widely used, including trastuzumab emtansine, T-DXd and SG, and multiple late-stage trials are ongoing. Thus, in the coming years, we are likely to see significant changes to treatment algorithms. As the number of available ADCs increases, biomarkers (of response and resistance) to better select patients are urgently needed. Biopsy sample collection at the time of treatment selection and incorporation of translational research into clinical trial designs are therefore critical. Biopsy samples taken peri- and post-ADC treatment combined with functional genomics screens could provide insights into response/resistance mechanisms as well as the impact of ADCs on tumour biology and the tumour microenvironment, which could improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying these complex molecules. Many ADCs are undergoing evaluation as combination therapy, but a high bar should be set to progress clinical evaluation of any ADC-based combination, particularly considering the high cost and potential toxicity implications. Efforts to optimise ADC dosing/duration, sequencing and the potential for ADC rechallenge are also important, especially considering sustainability aspects. The ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation are driving strong collaborations in this field and promoting the generation/sharing of databases, repositories and registries to enable greater access to data. This will allow the most important research questions to be identified and prioritised, which will ultimately accelerate progress and help to improve patient outcomes.

Effectiveness of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone or in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in first-line (1L) non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Nsq-NSCLC) with PD-L1-high expression using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Anti-programmed cell death protein (death-ligand) 1 [PD-(L)1] therapy alone [cancer immunotherapy (CIT)-mono] or combined with platinum-based chemotherapy (CIT-chemo) is used as the first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study compared clinical outcomes with CIT-mono versus CIT-chemo in the specific clinical scenario of non-squamous (Nsq)-NSCLC with a high PD-L1 expression of ≥50% [tumor proportion score (TPS) or tumor cells (TC)]. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using a real-world de-identified database. Patients with metastatic Nsq-NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression initiating first-line CIT-mono or CIT-chemo between 24 October 2016 and 28 February 2019 were followed up until 28 February 2020. We compared overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) using the Kaplan-Meier methodology. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted (aHR) for differences in baseline key prognostic characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting methodology. RESULTS: Patients with PD-L1-high Nsq-NSCLC treated with CIT-mono (n = 351) were older and less often presented with de novo stage IV disease than patients treated with CIT-chemo (n = 169). With a median follow-up of 19.9 months for CIT-chemo versus 23.5 months for CIT-mono, median OS and rwPFS did not differ between the two groups [median OS: CIT-chemo, 21.0 months versus CIT-mono, 22.1 months, aHR = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.39, P = 0.83; median rwPFS: CIT-chemo, 10.8 months versus CIT-mono, 11.5 months, aHR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.37, P = 0.81]. CIT-chemo showed significant and meaningful improvement in OS and rwPFS versus CIT-mono only in the never-smoker subgroup, albeit among a small sample of patients (n = 50; OS HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.83, interaction P = 0.02; rwPFS HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.95, interaction P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Except in the subgroup of never-smoker patients, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line CIT treatment does not appear to impact survival outcomes in Nsq-NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

Clinical definition of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Acquired resistance (AR) to programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-(L)1] blockade is frequent in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), occurring in a majority of initial responders. Patients with AR may have unique properties of persistent antitumor immunity that could be re-harnessed by investigational immunotherapies. The absence of a consistent clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade and lack of uniform criteria for ensuing enrollment in clinical trials remains a major barrier to progress; such clinical definitions have advanced biologic and therapeutic discovery. We examine the considerations and potential controversies in developing a patient-level definition of AR in NSCLC treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Taking into account the specifics of NSCLC biology and corresponding treatment strategies, we propose a practical, clinical definition of AR to PD-(L)1 blockade for use in clinical reports and prospective clinical trials. Patients should meet the following criteria: received treatment that includes PD-(L)1 blockade; experienced objective response on PD-(L)1 blockade (inclusion of a subset of stable disease will require future investigation); have progressive disease occurring within 6 months of last anti-PD-(L)1 antibody treatment or rechallenge with anti-PD-(L)1 antibody in patients not exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 in 6 months.

Updated overall survival and final progression-free survival data for patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in the ALEX study.

BACKGROUND: The ALEX study demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the primary data cut-off (9 February 2017). We report mature PFS (cut-off: 30 November 2018) and overall survival (OS) data up to 5 years (cut-off: 29 November 2019). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III/IV ALK-positive NSCLC were randomized to receive twice-daily alectinib 600 mg (n = 152) or crizotinib 250 mg (n = 151) until disease progression, toxicity, withdrawal or death. Primary end point: investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end points included objective response rate, OS and safety. RESULTS: Mature PFS data showed significantly prolonged investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.58; median PFS 34.8 versus 10.9 months crizotinib]. Median duration of OS follow-up: 48.2 months alectinib, 23.3 months crizotinib. OS data remain immature (37% of events). Median OS was not reached with alectinib versus 57.4 months with crizotinib (stratified HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98). The 5-year OS rate was 62.5% (95% CI 54.3-70.8) with alectinib and 45.5% (95% CI 33.6-57.4) with crizotinib, with 34.9% and 8.6% of patients still on study treatment, respectively. The OS benefit of alectinib was seen in patients with central nervous system metastases at baseline [HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.34-1.00)] and those without [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.45-1.26)]. Median treatment duration was longer with alectinib (28.1 versus 10.8 months), and no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Mature PFS data from ALEX confirmed significant improvement in PFS for alectinib over crizotinib in ALK-positive NSCLC. OS data remain immature, with a higher 5-year OS rate with alectinib versus crizotinib. This is the first global randomized study to show clinically meaningful improvement in OS for a next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor versus crizotinib in treatment-naive ALK-positive NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02075840.

Crizotinib in c-MET- or ROS1-positive NSCLC: results of the AcSé phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the French National Cancer Institute initiated the AcSé program to provide patients with secure access to targeted therapies outside of their marketed approvals. Efficacy and safety was then assessed using a two-stage Simon phase II trial design. When the study design was designed, crizotinib was approved only as monotherapy for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase plus non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced NSCLC patients with c-MET ≥6 copies, c-MET-mutated, or ROS-1-translocated tumours were enrolled in one of the three cohorts. Patients were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. Efficacy was assessed using the objective response rate (ORR) after two cycles of crizotinib as primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included disease control rate at four cycles, best ORR, progression-free survival, overall survival, and drug tolerance. RESULTS: From August 2013 to March 2018, 5606 patients had their tumour tested for crizotinib targeted molecular alterations: 252 patients had c-MET ≥6 copies, 74 c-MET-mutation, and 78 ROS-1-translocated tumour. Finally, 25 patients in the c-MET ≥6 copies cohort, 28 in the c-MET-mutation cohort, and 37 in the ROS-1-translocation cohort were treated in the phase II trial. The ORR was 16% in the c-MET ≥6 copies cohort, 10.7% in the mutated, and 47.2% in the ROS-1 cohort. The best ORR during treatment was 32% in the c-MET-≥6 copies cohort, 36% in the c-MET-mutated, and 69.4% in the ROS-1-translocation cohort. Safety data were consistent with that previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib activity in patients with ROS1-translocated tumours was confirmed. In the c-MET-mutation and c-MET ≥6 copies cohorts, despite insufficient ORR after two cycles of crizotinib, there are signs of late response not sufficient to justify the development of crizotinib in this indication. The continued targeting of c-MET with innovative therapies appears justified. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02034981.

Molecular screening program to select molecular-based recommended therapies for metastatic cancer patients: analysis from the ProfiLER trial.

BACKGROUND: Antitumor activity of molecular-targeted agents is guided by the presence of documented genomic alteration in specific histological subtypes. We aim to explore the feasibility, efficacy and therapeutic impact of molecular profiling in routine setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentric prospective study enrolled adult or pediatric patients with solid or hematological advanced cancer previously treated in advanced/metastatic setting and noneligible to curative treatment. Each molecular profile was established on tumor, relapse or biopsies, and reviewed by a molecular tumor board (MTB) to identify molecular-based recommended therapies (MBRT). The main outcome was to assess the incidence rate of genomic mutations in routine setting, across specific histological types. Secondary objectives included a description of patients with actionable alterations and for whom MBRT was initiated, and overall response rate. RESULTS: Four centers included 2579 patients from February 2013 to February 2017, and the MTB reviewed the molecular profiles achieved for 1980 (76.8%) patients. The most frequently altered genes were CDKN2A (N = 181, 7%), KRAS (N = 177, 7%), PIK3CA (N = 185, 7%), and CCND1 (N = 104, 4%). An MBRT was recommended for 699/2579 patients (27%), and only 163/2579 patients (6%) received at least one MBRT. Out of the 182 lines of MBRT initiated, 23 (13%) partial responses were observed. However, only 0.9% of the whole cohort experienced an objective response. CONCLUSION: An MBRT was provided for 27% of patients in our study, but only 6% of patients actually received matched therapy with an overall response rate of 0.9%. Molecular screening should not be used at present to guide decision-making in routine clinical practice outside of clinical trials.This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774409.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer: CNS efficacy results from the ALEX study.

Background: The phase III ALEX study in patients with treatment-naive advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive (ALK+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its primary end point of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with alectinib versus crizotinib. Here, we present detailed central nervous system (CNS) efficacy data from ALEX. Patients and methods: Overall, 303 patients aged ≥18 years underwent 1:1 randomization to receive twice-daily doses of alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg. Brain imaging was conducted in all patients at baseline and every subsequent 8 weeks. End points (analyzed by subgroup: patients with/without baseline CNS metastases; patients with/without prior radiotherapy) included PFS, CNS objective response rate (ORR), and time to CNS progression. Results: In total, 122 patients had Independent Review Committee-assessed baseline CNS metastases (alectinib, n = 64; crizotinib, n = 58), 43 had measurable lesions (alectinib, n = 21; crizotinib, n = 22), and 46 had received prior radiotherapy (alectinib, n = 25; crizotinib, n = 21). Investigator-assessed PFS with alectinib was consistent between patients with baseline CNS metastases [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.64] and those without (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80, P interaction = 0.36). Similar results were seen in patients regardless of prior radiotherapy. Time to CNS progression was significantly longer with alectinib versus crizotinib and comparable between patients with and without baseline CNS metastases (P < 0.0001). CNS ORR was 85.7% with alectinib versus 71.4% with crizotinib in patients who received prior radiotherapy and 78.6% versus 40.0%, respectively, in those who had not. Conclusion: Alectinib demonstrated superior CNS activity and significantly delayed CNS progression versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK+ NSCLC, irrespective of prior CNS disease or radiotherapy. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.

Predictive biomarkers for response to EGFR-directed monoclonal antibodies for advanced squamous cell lung cancer.

Background: Upregulated expression and aberrant activation of the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) are found in lung cancer, making EGFR a relevant target for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is associated with modest improvement in overall survival in patients with squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC) who have a significant unmet need for effective treatment options. While there is evidence that using EGFR gene copy number, EGFR mutation, and EGFR protein expression as biomarkers can help select patients who respond to treatment, it is important to consider biomarkers for response in patients treated with combination therapies that include EGFR mAbs. Design: Randomized trials of EGFR-directed mAbs cetuximab and necitumumab in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or antiangiogenic therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, including SqCLC, were searched in the literature. Results of associations of potential biomarkers and outcomes were summarized. Results: Data from phase III clinical trials indicate that patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein (H-score of ≥200) and/or gene copy numbers of EGFR (e.g. ≥40% cells with ≥4 EGFR copies as detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization; gene amplification in ≥10% of analyzed cells) derive greater therapeutic benefits from EGFR-directed mAbs. Biomarker data are limited for EGFR mAbs used in combination with immunotherapy and are absent when used in combination with antiangiogenic agents. Conclusions: Therapy with EGFR-directed mAbs in combination with chemotherapy is associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein and/or have increased EGFR gene copy number. These data support validating the role of these as biomarkers to identify those patients who derive the greatest clinical benefit from EGFR mAb therapy. However, data on biomarkers for EGFR-directed mAbs combined with immunotherapy or antiangiogenic agents remain limited.

Clinical characteristic and survival outcomes of patients with advanced NSCLC according to KRAS mutational status in the French real-life ESME cohort.

PURPOSE: The RAS/MEK signaling pathway is essential in carcinogenesis and frequently altered in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), notably by KRAS mutations (KRASm) that affect 25%-30% of non-squamous NSCLC. This study aims to explore the impact of KRASm subtypes on disease phenotype and survival outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics database for advanced or metastatic lung cancer from 2011 to 2021. Patient demographics, histology, KRASm status, treatment strategies, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 10 177 assessable patients for KRAS status, 17.6% had KRAS p.G12C mutation, 22.6% had KRAS non-p.G12C mutation, and 59.8% were KRASwt. KRASm patients were more often smokers (96.3%) compared with KRASwt (85.8%). A higher proportion of programmed death-ligand 1 ≥50% was found for KRASm patients: 43.5% versus 38.0% (P < 0.01). KRASm correlated with poorer outcomes. First-line median progression-free survival was shorter in the KRASm than the KRASwt cohort: 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7-4.3 months] versus 5.1 months (95% CI 4.8-5.3 months), P < 0.001. First-line overall survival was shorter for KRASm than KRASwt patients: 12.6 months (95% CI 11.6-13.6 months) versus 15.4 months (95% CI 14.6-16.2 months), P = 0.012. First-line chemoimmunotherapy offered better overall survival in KRAS p.G12C (48.8 months) compared with KRAS non-p.G12C (24.0 months) and KRASwt (22.5 months) patients. Second-line overall survival with immunotherapy was superior in the KRAS p.G12C subgroup: 12.6 months (95% CI 8.1-18.6 months) compared with 9.4 months (95% CI 8.0-11.4 months) for KRAS non-p.G12C and 9.6 months (8.4-11.0 months) for KRASwt patients. CONCLUSION: We highlighted distinct clinical profiles and survival outcomes according to KRASm subtypes. Notably KRAS p.G12C mutations may provide increased sensitivity to immunotherapy, suggesting potential therapeutic implications for sequencing or combination of therapies. Further research on the impact of emerging KRAS specific inhibitors are warranted in real-world cohorts.

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.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year update.

BACKGROUND: To further characterize survival benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, we report updated data from the phase III CheckMate 9LA trial with a 2-year minimum follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients were treatment naïve, with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with two cycles of chemotherapy, or four cycles of chemotherapy. Updated efficacy and safety outcomes are reported, along with progression-free survival (PFS) after next line of treatment (PFS2), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) by treatment cycle, and efficacy outcomes in patients who discontinued all treatment components in the experimental arm due to TRAEs. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 30.7 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.8 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86)]; 2-year OS rate was 38% versus 26%. Two-year PFS rate was 20% versus 8%. ORR was 38% versus 25%, respectively; 34% versus 12% of all responses were ongoing at 2 years. Median PFS2 was 13.9 versus 8.7 months. Improved efficacy outcomes in the experimental versus control arm were observed across most subgroups, including by programmed death-ligand 1 and histology. No new safety signals were observed; onset of grade 3/4 TRAEs was mostly observed during the first two treatment cycles in the experimental arm. In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy treatment due to TRAEs (n = 61) median OS was 27.5 months; 56% of responders had an ongoing response ≥1 year after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: With a 2-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided durable efficacy benefits over chemotherapy with a manageable safety profile and remains an efficacious first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment of a first cancer is associated with a decreased incidence of second primary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Second primary cancers (SPCs) are diagnosed in over 5% of patients after a first primary cancer (FPC). We explore here the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) given for an FPC on the risk of SPC in different age groups, cancer types and treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The files of the 46 829 patients diagnosed with an FPC in the Centre Léon Bérard from 2013 to 2018 were analyzed. Structured data were extracted and electronic patient records were screened using a natural language processing tool, with validation using manual screening of 2818 files of patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the incidence of SPC according to patient characteristics and treatment were conducted. RESULTS: Among the 46 829 patients, 1830 (3.9%) had a diagnosis of SPC with a median interval of 11.1 months (range 0-78 months); 18 128 (38.7%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) and 1163 (2.5%) received ICIs for the treatment of the FPC in this period. SPCs were observed in 7/1163 (0.6%) patients who had received ICIs for their FPC versus 437/16 997 (2.6%) patients receiving CC and no ICIs for the FPC versus 1386/28 669 (4.8%) for patients receiving neither CC nor ICIs for the FPC. This reduction was observed at all ages and for all histotypes analyzed. Treatment with ICIs and/or CC for the FPC are associated with a reduced risk of SPC in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy with ICIs alone and in combination with CC was found to be associated with a reduced incidence of SPC for all ages and cancer types.

[Bevacizumab and non-small cell lung cancer: a new step?]. / Bevacizumab et cancer bronchique non à petites cellules: une nouvelle étape?

Inhibition of specific processes essential for tumour vascular development is one of the key strategies for the treatment of non- small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Many agents target the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) pathway, either by preventing VEGF receptor binding or inhibiting VEGF receptor signalling in endothelial cells. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody specific for VEGF-A. Combination of bevacizumab with standard first-line chemotherapy in NSCLC leads to an improvement in response rates and progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone and a significant survival advantage with carboplatin- paclitaxel chemotherapy. Toxicity issues are of concern with the possible occurrence of hypertension and an increased risk of arterial thrombo-embolism. The occurrence of fatal pulmonary haemorrhage after necrosis of the primary tumour is a specific toxicity in NSCLC which requires appropriate selection of patients before treatment; excluding squamous cell carcinoma, haemorrhagic tumours and tumour invasion of major blood vessels. The use of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy represent a first step in the development of antiangiogenic treatments in NSCLC, with the future possibility of using it in earlier stages of disease.

Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Cancer Cetuximab Study is an open-label, randomized phase II pilot study of cisplatin and vinorelbine combined with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab versus cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). End points of the study are activity, safety and pharmacokinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following randomization, for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m(2), day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) alone or following cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m(2), followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter). RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to the study (43 per arm). Confirmed response rates were 28% in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (A) and 35% in the cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months in arm A and 5.0 months in arm B, with PFS rates at 12 months of 0% and 15%, respectively. Median survival was 7.3 months in arm A and 8.3 months in arm B. The 24-month survival rates were 0% and 16%, respectively. The cetuximab combination was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the combination of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and the potential to improve activity over cisplatin/vinorelbine alone.

[Diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia: a rare preneoplastic condition]. / L'hyperplasie neuroendocrine pulmonaire idiopathique: une lésion prénéoplasique méconnue.

Diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) is an uncommon preneoplastic condition, often associated with typical carcinoid tumours. The observations reported below concern two women, both suffering from chronic pulmonary symptoms. These patients underwent computed tomography that showed a solitary nodule in the first patient and multiple sub centimetre nodules in the second. In both cases histological studies of the pulmonary biopsies revealed: a proliferation of neuroendocrine cells dispersed in the bronchial and bronchiolar epithelium, more specifically superficial to the basement membrane; some tumourlets; a typical carcinoid tumour was also found in the first patient's biopsy. The choice of treatment remains difficult, mainly because the existing studies are restricted to small numbers of patients or isolated cases, a consequence of the low prevalence of this disease. Considering its slow evolution, management by long-term clinical, endoscopic and radiologic surveillance may be considered. If a carcinoid tumour is present or appears during the surveillance, the standard treatment is still surgical resection.

[Idiopathic constrictive péricarditis revealed by a massive left pleural effusion]. / Epanchement pleural gauche massif révélateur d'une péricardite constrictive idiopathique.

INTRODUCTION: We report a case of constrictive péricarditis initially revealed by a massive left sided pleural effusion. CASE REPORT: The patient was dyspnoeic without any associated clinical signs. Only cardiac catheterization gave the diagnosis with a characteristic dip-plateau of the right ventricle. After full assessment, no aetiology was found. CONCLUSION: After a treatment with corticosteroids, the progress has been favourable to date.

[How to treat the relapse of NSCLC after surgery and chemotherapy? IFTC 0702 randomized phase III study]. / Comment traiter la rechute du CBNPC après une chirurgie et chimiothérapie?

BACKGROUND: As chemotherapy gains wider acceptance for the treatment of earlier stages of NSCLC, particularly in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting, physicians face a growing population of high performance status patients who have relapsed after their first-line chemotherapy. The type of second-line chemotherapy after initial adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment with a platinum-based regimen remains largely undefined. The current study has been designed to compare the classical mono chemotherapy docetaxel with a docetaxel cisplatin doublet. METHODS: Patients will be randomized in 2 arms. Arm: docetaxel cisplatin (cycles repeated every 21 days), 4 cycles followed by 2 cycles of docetaxel alone in case of objective response or stabilisation. Arm B: docetaxel alone (cycles repeated every 21 days), 4 cycles followed by 2 cycles of docetaxel alone in case of objective response or stabilisation. EXPECTED RESULTS: 300 patients will be randomized with a statistical hypothesis of a progression free survival of 3 months in the control arm and of 4.5 months in the experimental arm.