Purpose Patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have poor survival outcomes despite first-line chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum. This randomized, double-blind ...phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab or placebo plus etoposide and platinum in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage disease SCLC. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (cisplatin or carboplatin) plus ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for a total of four doses each in a phased induction schedule (chemotherapy in cycles one to four; ipilimumab or placebo beginning in cycle three up to cycle six), followed by ipilimumab or placebo maintenance every 12 weeks. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) among patients receiving at least one dose of blinded study therapy. Results Of 1,132 patients randomly assigned, 954 received at least one dose of study therapy (chemotherapy plus ipilimumab, n = 478; chemotherapy plus placebo, n = 476). Median OS was 11.0 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab versus 10.9 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.09; P = .3775). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months for chemotherapy plus ipilimumab versus 4.4 months for chemotherapy plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.97). Rates and severity of treatment-related adverse events were similar between arms, except for diarrhea, rash, and colitis, which were more frequent with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Rate of treatment-related discontinuation was higher with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab (18% v 2% with chemotherapy plus placebo). Five treatment-related deaths occurred with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab and two with chemotherapy plus placebo. Conclusion Addition of ipilimumab to chemotherapy did not prolong OS versus chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed extensive-stage disease SCLC. No new or unexpected adverse events were observed with chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Several ongoing studies are evaluating ipilimumab in combination with programmed death-1 inhibitors in SCLC.
Summary Background MUC1 is a tumour-associated antigen expressed by many solid tumours, including non-small-cell lung cancer. TG4010 is a modified vaccinia Ankara expressing MUC1 and interleukin 2. ...In a previous study, TG4010 combined with chemotherapy showed activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and the baseline value of CD16, CD56, CD69 triple-positive activated lymphocytes (TrPAL) was shown to be potentially predictive of TG4010 efficacy. In this phase 2b part of the phase 2b/3 TIME trial, we further assess TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy and use of the TrPAL biomarker in this setting. Methods In this phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial, we recruited previously untreated patients aged 18 years or older with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without a known activating EGFR mutation and with MUC1 expression in at least 50% of tumoural cells. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by an external service provider to subcutaneous injections of 108 plaque-forming units of TG4010 or placebo from the beginning of chemotherapy every week for 6 weeks and then every 3 weeks up to progression, discontinuation for any reason, or toxic effects, stratified according to baseline value of TrPAL (≤ or > the upper limit of normal ULN) and, in addition, a dynamic minimisation procedure was used, taking into account chemotherapy regimen, histology, addition or not of bevacizumab, performance status, and centre. Patients, site staff, monitors, the study funder, data managers, and the statistician were masked to treatment identity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed every 6 weeks, to validate the predictive value of the TrPAL biomarker. If patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN had a Bayesian probability of more than 95% that the true hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was less than 1, and if those with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN had a probability of more than 80% that the true HR for progression-free survival was more than 1, the TrPAL biomarker would be validated. We did primary analyses in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in those who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one valid post-baseline safety assessment. Monitors, site staff, and patients are still masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01383148. Findings Between April 10, 2012, and Sept 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 222 patients (TG4010 and chemotherapy 111 50%; placebo and chemotherapy 111 50%). In the whole population, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 5·4–6·7) in the TG4010 group and 5·1 months (4·2–5·9) in the placebo group (HR 0·74 95% CI 0·55–0·98; one-sided p=0·019). In patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·75 (0·54–1·03); the posterior probability of the HR being less than 1 was 98·4%, and thus the primary endpoint was met. In patients with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·77 (0·42–1·40); the posterior probability of the HR being greater than 1 was 31·3%, and the primary endpoint was not met. We noted grade 1–2 injection-site reactions in 36 (33%) of 110 patients in the TG4010 group versus four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group. We noted no grade 3 or 4 nor serious adverse events deemed to be related to TG4010 only. Four (4%) patients presented grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to TG4010 and other study treatments (chemotherapy or bevacizumab) versus 11 (10%) in the placebo group. No serious adverse event was related to the combination of TG4010 with other study treatments. The most frequent severe adverse events were neutropenia (grade 3 29 26%, grade 4 13 12% in the TG4010 group vs grade 3 22 21%, grade 4 11 10% in the placebo group), anaemia (grade 3 12 11% vs grade 3 16 15%), and fatigue (grade 3 12 11%, grade 5 one 1% vs grade 3 13 12%; no grade 4 events). Interpretation TG4010 plus chemotherapy seems to improve progression-free survival relative to placebo plus chemotherapy. These data support the clinical value of the TrPAL biomarker in this clinical setting; because the primary endpoint was met, the trial is to continue into the phase 3 part. Funding Transgene, Avancées Diagnostiques pour de Nouvelles Approches Thérapeutiques (ADNA), and OSEO.
Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This ...phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL).
A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild).
Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.
Sunitinib plus erlotinib may enhance antitumor activity compared with either agent alone in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on the importance of the signaling pathways involved in tumor ...growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. This phase III trial investigated overall survival (OS) for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC.
Patients previously treated with one to two chemotherapy regimens (including one platinum-based regimen) for recurrent NSCLC, and for whom erlotinib was indicated, were randomly assigned (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus erlotinib 150 mg/d or to placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg/d, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, smoking history, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.
In all, 960 patients were randomly assigned, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Median OS was 9.0 months for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus 8.5 months for erlotinib alone (hazard ratio HR, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388). Median PFS was 3.6 months versus 2.0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10.6% versus 6.9% (two-sided stratified log-rank P = .0471), respectively. Treatment-related toxicities of grade 3 or higher, including rash/dermatitis, diarrhea, and asthenia/fatigue were more frequent in the sunitinib plus erlotinib arm.
In patients with refractory NSCLC, sunitinib plus erlotinib did not improve OS compared with erlotinib alone, but the combination was associated with a statistically significantly longer PFS and greater ORR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities was greater with combination therapy.
Summary Background Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus ...pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00982111. Findings Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5–13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1–13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 95% CI 0·84–1·21; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 51% of 304 vs 127 41% of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3–4 rash (45 15% of 304 vs one <1% of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 8% vs seven 2% patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 8% vs 11 4% patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. Interpretation Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.
The cancer vaccine Vx-001, which targets the universal tumour antigen TElomerase Reverse Transcriptase (TERT), can mount specific Vx-001/TERT
CD8 + cytotoxic T cells; this immune response is ...associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
A randomised, double blind, phase 2b trial, in HLA-A*201-positive patients with metastatic, TERT-expressing NSCLC, who did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomised to receive either Vx-001 or placebo. The primary endpoint of the trial was OS.
Two hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised and 190 (101 and 89 patients in the placebo and the Vx-001 arm, respectively) were analysed for efficacy. There was not treatment-related toxicity >grade 2. The study did not meet its primary endpoint (median OS 11.3 and 14.3 months for the placebo and the Vx-001, respectively; p = 0.86) whereas the median Time to Treatment Failure (TTF) was 3.5 and 3.6 months, respectively. Disease control for >6months was observed in 30 (33.7%) and 26 (25.7%) patients treated with Vx-001 and placebo, respectively. There was no documented objective CR or PR. Long lasting TERT-specific immune response was observed in 29.2% of vaccinated patients who experienced a significantly longer OS compared to non-responders (21.3 and 13.4 months, respectively; p = 0.004).
Vx-001 could induce specific CD8
immune response but failed to meet its primary endpoint. Subsequent studies have to be focused on the identification and treatment of subgroups of patients able to mount an effective immunological response to Vx-001.
NCT01935154.
This phase III study examined efficacy of the synthetic Toll-like receptor 9-activating oligodeoxynucleotide PF-3512676 in combination with standard paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy in patients ...with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive up to six courses of paclitaxel/carboplatin (intravenous paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) and carboplatin at area under the concentration-time curve 6 on day 1 of a 3-week cycle) alone (control arm) or in combination with 0.2 mg/kg subcutaneous PF-3512676 on days 8 and 15 (investigational arm). Primary end point was overall survival (OS).
Baseline demographics were similar across arms (N = 828). Most patients (88%) had stage IV disease. Median OS and median progression-free survival (PFS) were similar (OS: investigational arm, 10.0 months v control arm, 9.8 months; P = .56; PFS: investigational arm, 4.8 months v control arm, 4.7 months; P = .79). Most commonly reported PF-3512676-related adverse events (AEs) were mild-to-moderate local injection site reactions, pyrexia, and flu-like symptoms. In the investigational arm, grades 3 to 4 AEs, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia, were more frequent, and more patients had one or more sepsis-related AEs versus controls (17 v 3). At first interim analysis, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended study discontinuation because of lack of incremental efficacy and more sepsis-related serious AEs in the PF-3512676 arm. Administration of PF-3512676, but not chemotherapy, was halted.
Addition of PF-3512676 to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve OS or PFS versus paclitaxel/carboplatin alone for first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC but did increase toxicity. This regimen cannot be recommended for treating patients with advanced NSCLC.
Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare ...pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).
Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve AUC 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin.
Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio HR,1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm.
Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.
In a randomized trial, the addition of atezolizumab to carboplatin and etoposide resulted in significantly longer overall survival than carboplatin and etoposide alone (12.3 months vs. 10.3 months).
To compare vinflunine (VFL) to docetaxel in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have experienced treatment failure with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
...Randomized, multicenter, phase III study, 551 patients received either vinflunine 320 mg/m(2) or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days until disease progression or serious toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The noninferiority analysis was based on a 10% difference (types I/II error rates: 5%/20%). Secondary end points included response rate (ORR), response duration, overall survival (OS), clinical benefit, quality of life (QOL), and safety.
Median PFS was 2.3 months for each arm (HR, 1.004; 95% CI, 0.841 to 1.199). ORR, stable disease, median OS, were 4.4% versus 5.5%, 36.0% versus 39.6%, 6.7 versus 7.2 months (HR, 0.973; 95% CI, 0.805 to 1.176), respectively. No significant difference in patient benefit and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung). No unexpected adverse events were observed. Grade higher than 0 (vinflunine v docetaxel) anemia (82.1% v 79.8%), neutropenia (49.3 v 39.02%), thrombocytopenia (30.6% v 14.3%), febrile neutropenia (3.3% v 4.7%), constipation (39.2% v 11.7%), fatigue (36.6% v 33.9%), injection site reaction (31.9% v 0.7%), nausea (26.7% v 23.7%), vomiting (23.8% v 14.2%), alopecia (19.8% v 35.4%), stomatis (19.4% v 12.4%), abdominal pain (20.1% v 3.6%), myalgia (14.7% v 6.6%), peripheral neuropathy (10.7% v 15.0%), arthralgia (7.0% v 7.7%), diarrhea (6.2% v 12.4%), edema (1.5% v 5.4%), and nail disorders (1.1% v 5;1%) were observed.
This noninferiority phase III study showed similar efficacy end points for vinflunine and docetaxel. Despite higher rates of some adverse effects (anemia, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue) the overall toxicity profile of vinflunine was manageable. Therefore, VFL may be another option in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.
PDF
