Summary Background Despite recent advances in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, there remains a need for effective treatments for progressive disease. We assessed the efficacy of ...pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 study at 202 academic medical centres in 24 countries. Patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumour cells were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six per stratum with an interactive voice-response system to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival both in the total population and in patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumour cells. We used a threshold for significance of p<0·00825 (one-sided) for the analysis of overall survival and a threshold of p<0·001 for progression-free survival. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01905657. Findings Between Aug 28, 2013, and Feb 27, 2015, we enrolled 1034 patients: 345 allocated to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 346 allocated to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 343 allocated to docetaxel. By Sept 30, 2015, 521 patients had died. In the total population, median overall survival was 10·4 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 12·7 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 8·5 months with docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (hazard ratio HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·58–0·88; p=0·0008) and for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0·61, 0·49–0·75; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 3·9 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 4·0 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 4·0 months with docetaxel, with no significant difference for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0·88, 0·74–1·05; p=0·07) or for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (HR 0·79, 95% CI 0·66–0·94; p=0·004). Among patients with at least 50% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1, overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 14·9 months vs 8·2 months; HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·38–0·77; p=0·0002) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (17·3 months vs 8·2 months; 0·50, 0·36–0·70; p<0·0001). Likewise, for this patient population, progression-free survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 5·0 months vs 4·1 months; HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·44–0·78; p=0·0001) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (5·2 months vs 4·1 months; 0·59, 0·45–0·78; p<0·0001). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events were less common with pembrolizumab than with docetaxel (43 13% of 339 patients given 2 mg/kg, 55 16% of 343 given 10 mg/kg, and 109 35% of 309 given docetaxel). Interpretation Pembrolizumab prolongs overall survival and has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. These data establish pembrolizumab as a new treatment option for this population and validate the use of PD-L1 selection. Funding Merck & Co.
Summary Background Osimertinib (AZD9291) is an oral, potent, irreversible EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor selective for EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor sensitising mutations, and the EGFR Thr790Met ...resistance mutation. We assessed the efficacy and safety of osimertinib in patients with EGFR Thr790Met-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who had progressed after previous therapy with an approved EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. Methods In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm study (AURA2), patients aged at least 18 years with centrally confirmed EGFR Thr790Met-positive mutations, locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC who progressed on previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy received osimertinib 80 mg orally once daily; treatment could continue beyond progression if the investigator observed a clinical benefit. Patients with asymptomatic, stable CNS metastases not requiring steroids were allowed to enrol. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response by blinded independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Response endpoints were assessed in the evaluable for response analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of osimertinib and had measurable disease at baseline according to blinded independent central review). Other endpoints and safety were assessed in all patients receiving at least one osimertinib dose (full analysis set). The study is ongoing and patients are still receiving treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02094261. Findings Between May 20, 2014, and Sept 12, 2014, 472 patients were screened, of whom 210 started osimertinib treatment between June 13, 2014, and Oct 27, 2014; 11 patients were excluded from the evaluable for response analysis set (n=199) due to absence of measurable disease at baseline by blinded independent central review. At data cutoff (Nov 1, 2015), 122 (58%) patients remained on treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 13·0 months (IQR 7·6–14·2). 140 (70%; 95% CI 64–77) of 199 patients achieved an objective response by blinded independent central review: confirmed complete responses were achieved in six (3%) patients and partial responses were achieved in 134 (67%) patients. The most common all-causality grade 3 and 4 adverse events were pulmonary embolism (seven 3%), prolonged electrocardiogram QT (five 2%), decreased neutrophil count (four 2%), anaemia, dyspnoea, hyponatraemia, increased alanine aminotransferase, and thrombocytopenia (three 1% each). Serious adverse events were reported in 52 (25%) patients, of which 11 (5%) were investigator assessed as possibly treatment-related to osimertinib. Seven deaths were due to adverse events; these were pneumonia (n=2), pneumonia aspiration (n=1), rectal haemorrhage (n=1), dyspnoea (n=1), failure to thrive (n=1), and interstitial lung disease (n=1). The only fatal event assessed as possibly treatment-related by the investigator was due to interstitial lung disease. Interpretation Osimertinib showed clinical activity with manageable side-effects in patients with EGFR Thr790Met-positive NSCLC. Therefore, osimertinib could be a suitable treatment for patients with EGFR Thr790Met-positive disease who have progressed on an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. Funding AstraZeneca.
Preclinical data suggest that EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus MET TKIs are a possible treatment for EGFR mutation-positive lung cancers with MET-driven acquired resistance. Phase 1 safety ...data of savolitinib (also known as AZD6094, HMPL-504, volitinib), a potent, selective MET TKI, plus osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR TKI, have provided recommended doses for study. Here, we report the assessment of osimertinib plus savolitinib in two global expansion cohorts of the TATTON study.
In this multi-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic, MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who had progressed on EGFR TKIs. We considered two expansion cohorts: parts B and D. Part B consisted of three cohorts of patients: those who had been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI (B1) and those who had not been previously treated with a third-generation EGFR TKI who were either Thr790Met negative (B2) or Thr790Met positive (B3). In part B, patients received oral osimertinib 80 mg and savolitinib 600 mg daily; after a protocol amendment (March 12, 2018), patients who weighed no more than 55 kg received a 300 mg dose of savolitinib. Part D enrolled patients who had not previously received a third-generation EGFR TKI and were Thr790Met negative; these patients received osimertinib 80 mg plus savolitinib 300 mg. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, which were assessed in all dosed patients. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients who had an objective response per RECIST 1.1 and was assessed in all dosed patients and all patients with centrally confirmed MET amplification. Here, we present an interim analysis with data cutoff on March 29, 2019. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02143466.
Between May 26, 2015, and Feb 14, 2019, we enrolled 144 patients into part B and 42 patients into part D. In part B, 138 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 600 mg (n=130) or 300 mg (n=8). In part D, 42 patients received osimertinib plus savolitinib 300 mg. 79 (57%) of 138 patients in part B and 16 (38%) of 42 patients in part D had adverse events of grade 3 or worse. 115 (83%) patients in part B and 25 (60%) patients in part D had adverse events possibly related to savolitinib and serious adverse events were reported in 62 (45%) patients in part B and 11 (26%) patients in part D; two adverse events leading to death (acute renal failure and death, cause unknown) were possibly related to treatment in part B. Objective partial responses were observed in 66 (48%; 95% CI 39–56) patients in part B and 23 (64%; 46–79) in part D.
The combination of osimertinib and savolitinib has acceptable risk–benefit profile and encouraging antitumour activity in patients with MET-amplified, EGFR mutation-positive, advanced NSCLC, who had disease progression on a previous EGFR TKI. This combination might be a potential treatment option for patients with MET-driven resistance to EGFR TKIs.
AstraZeneca.
Background
This study assesses different technologies for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations from circulating tumor DNA in patients with EGFR T790M‐positive advanced ...non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the AURA3 study (NCT02151981), and it evaluates clinical responses to osimertinib and platinum‐pemetrexed according to the plasma T790M status.
Methods
Tumor tissue biopsy samples were tested for T790M during screening with the cobas EGFR Mutation Test (cobas tissue). Plasma samples were collected at screening and at the baseline and were retrospectively analyzed for EGFR mutations with the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 (cobas plasma), droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR; Biodesix), and next‐generation sequencing (NGS; Guardant360, Guardant Health).
Results
With cobas tissue test results as a reference, the plasma T790M positive percent agreement (PPA) was 51% (110 of 215 samples) by cobas plasma, 58% (110 of 189) by ddPCR, and 66% (136 of 207) by NGS. Plasma T790M detection was associated with a larger median baseline tumor size (56 mm for T790M‐positive vs 39 mm for T790M‐negative; P < .0001) and the presence of extrathoracic disease (58% for M1b‐positive vs 39% for M0‐1a‐positive; P = .002). Progression‐free survival (PFS) was prolonged in randomized patients (tissue T790M‐positive) with a T790M‐negative cobas plasma result in comparison with those with a T790M‐positive plasma result in both osimertinib (median, 12.5 vs 8.3 months) and platinum‐pemetrexed groups (median, 5.6 vs 4.2 months).
Conclusions
PPA was similar between ddPCR and NGS assays; both were more sensitive than cobas plasma. All 3 test platforms are suitable for routine clinical practice. In patients with tissue T790M‐positive NSCLC, an absence of detectable plasma T790M at the baseline is associated with longer PFS, which may be attributed to a lower disease burden.
This exploratory analysis of the AURA3 study demonstrates that plasma‐based platforms (cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2, next‐generation sequencing, and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction) are suitable for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation detection in routine clinical practice. In patients with tissue T790M‐positive non–small cell lung cancer, the absence of detectable plasma T790M is associated with longer progression‐free survival, which may be attributed to a lower disease burden.
MET
is altered by skipping exon 14 or gene amplification in 1 to 2% of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer. Capmatinib, a
MET
-specific tyrosine kinase inhibitor, led to a response in 40% of ...previously treated patients and in 67% of previously untreated patients whose tumors had
MET
alterations, with a median response duration of 9 months and 12 months, respectively.
In a study involving patients with non–small-cell lung cancer with a
MET
exon 14 skipping mutation, the use of tepotinib (a selective MET inhibitor) was associated with a partial response in ...approximately half the patients. The main adverse event was peripheral edema.
Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) versus crizotinib in ...advanced ALK inhibitor-naive ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at first interim analysis (99 events; median brigatinib follow-up, 11.0 months) in the open-label, phase III ALTA-1L trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02737501). We report results of the second prespecified interim analysis (150 events).
Patients with ALK inhibitor-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-day lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was PFS as assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC). Investigator-assessed efficacy, blood samples for pharmacokinetic assessments, and patient-reported outcomes were also collected.
Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). With median follow-up of 24.9 months for brigatinib (150 PFS events), brigatinib showed consistent superiority in BIRC-assessed PFS versus crizotinib (hazard ratio HR, 0.49 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.68; log-rank
< .0001; median, 24.0
11.0 months). Investigator-assessed PFS HR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.61; median, 29.4
9.2 months). No new safety concerns emerged. Brigatinib delayed median time to worsening of global health status/QoL scores compared with crizotinib (HR, 0.70 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.00; log-rank
= .049). Brigatinib daily area under the plasma concentration-time curve was not a predictor of PFS (HR, 1.005 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.031;
= .69).
Brigatinib represents a once-daily ALK inhibitor with superior efficacy, tolerability, and QoL over crizotinib, making it a promising first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC.
Background
This study evaluated whether an addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced EGFR‐mutated non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods
This is ...an open‐label, multicenter, randomized Phase 2 study in South Korea. Chemonaïve patients with Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with EGFR 19 deletion or L858R mutation were eligible. Asymptomatic brain metastasis (BM) was enrolled without local treatment. Patients received either erlotinib plus bevacizumab or erlotinib.
Results
Between December 2016 and March 2019, 127 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n = 64) or erlotinib (n = 63). Fifty‐nine (46.5%) patients had baseline BM. Fewer patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab arm received radiotherapy for BM than in the erlotinib arm (10.3% vs. 40.0%). A trend toward longer progression‐free survival (PFS) was observed in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab arm compared with the erlotinib alone arm; however, it was not statistically significant (median PFS, 17.5 months vs. 12.4 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51–1.08; p = .119). The unplanned subgroup analysis showed a longer PFS with erlotinib plus bevacizumab in patients with BM (median PFS, 18.6 months vs. 10.3 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31–0.95; p = .032). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 56.6% of the erlotinib plus bevacizumab arm and 20.6% of the erlotinib arm.
Conclusions
Although it was not statistically significant, a trend to improvement in PFS was observed in patients with erlotinib plus bevacizumab compared to erlotinib alone.
Plain Language Summary
A randomized Phase 2 study compared erlotinib with or without bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutation. The erlotinib plus bevacizumab failed to improve median progression‐free survival compared with the erlotinib alone. However, the progression‐free survival benefit from erlotinib plus bevacizumab was found in patients with brain metastasis with no severe hemorrhagic adverse effects.
A trend to improvement in progression‐free survival was observed in patients with advanced EGFR‐mutated non–small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib plus bevacizumab compared with erlotinib alone. The progression‐free survival benefit from erlotinib plus bevacizumab was most significant in patients with brain metastasis with no severe hemorrhagic adverse effects.
In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor–naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, brigatinib exhibited ...superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib in the two planned interim analyses. Here, we report the final efficacy, safety, and exploratory results.
Patients were randomized to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was a blinded independent review committee–assessed PFS. Genetic alterations in plasma cell-free DNA were assessed in relation to clinical efficacy.
A total of 275 patients were enrolled (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). At study end, (brigatinib median follow-up = 40.4 mo), the 3-year PFS by blinded independent review committee was 43% (brigatinib) versus 19% (crizotinib; median = 24.0 versus 11.1 mo, hazard ratio HR = 0.48, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.35–0.66). The median overall survival was not reached in either group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53–1.22). Posthoc analyses suggested an overall survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89). Detectable baseline EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor PFS. Brigatinib exhibited superior efficacy compared with crizotinib regardless of EML4-ALK variant and TP53 mutation. Emerging secondary ALK mutations were rare in patients progressing on brigatinib. No new safety signals were observed.
In the ALTA-1L final analysis, with longer follow-up, brigatinib continued to exhibit superior efficacy and tolerability versus crizotinib in patients with or without poor prognostic biomarkers. The suggested survival benefit with brigatinib in patients with brain metastases warrants future study.
Chrysin is a flavonoid found abundantly in substances, such as honey and phytochemicals, and is known to exhibit anticancer effects against various cancer cells. Nevertheless, the anticancer effect ...of chrysin against oral cancer has not yet been verified. Furthermore, the mechanism underlying autophagy is yet to be clearly elucidated. Thus, this study investigated chrysin-mediated apoptosis and autophagy in human mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MC-3) cells. The change in MC-3 cell viability was examined using a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazolyl-2)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide cell viability assay, as well as 40,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, annexin V, and propidium iodide staining. Western blotting was used to analyze the proteins related to apoptosis and the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. In addition, the presence or absence of autophagy and changes in the expression of related proteins were investigated using acridine orange staining and Western blot. The results suggested that chrysin induced apoptosis and autophagy in MC-3 oral cancer cells via the MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway. Moreover, the induced autophagy exerted a cytoprotective effect against apoptosis. Thus, the further reduced cell viability due to autophagy as well as apoptosis induction highlight therapeutic potential of chrysin for oral cancer.
PDF
