Summary Background Limited evidence exists to show that adding a third agent to platinum-doublet chemotherapy improves efficacy in the first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) setting. ...The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab has shown efficacy as monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and has a non-overlapping toxicity profile with chemotherapy. We assessed whether the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-doublet chemotherapy improves efficacy in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 2 cohort of a multicohort study (KEYNOTE-021), patients were enrolled at 26 medical centres in the USA and Taiwan. Patients with chemotherapy-naive, stage IIIB or IV, non-squamous NSCLC without targetable EGFR or ALK genetic aberrations were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four stratified by PD-L1 tumour proportion score (<1% vs ≥1%) using an interactive voice-response system to 4 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg plus carboplatin area under curve 5 mg/mL per min and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 3 weeks followed by pembrolizumab for 24 months and indefinite pemetrexed maintenance therapy or to 4 cycles of carboplatin and pemetrexed alone followed by indefinite pemetrexed maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, defined as the percentage of patients with radiologically confirmed complete or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed by masked, independent central review, in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were allocated to study treatment. Significance threshold was p<0·025 (one sided). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned study treatment. This trial, which is closed for enrolment but continuing for follow-up, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02039674. Findings Between Nov 25, 2014, and Jan 25, 2016, 123 patients were enrolled; 60 were randomly assigned to the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 63 to the chemotherapy alone group. 33 (55%; 95% CI 42–68) of 60 patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group achieved an objective response compared with 18 (29%; 18–41) of 63 patients in the chemotherapy alone group (estimated treatment difference 26% 95% CI 9–42%; p=0·0016). The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events was similar between groups (23 39% of 59 patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group and 16 26% of 62 in the chemotherapy alone group). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group were anaemia (seven 12% of 59) and decreased neutrophil count (three 5%); an additional six events each occurred in two (3%) for acute kidney injury, decreased lymphocyte count, fatigue, neutropenia, and sepsis, and thrombocytopenia. In the chemotherapy alone group, the most common grade 3 or worse events were anaemia (nine 15% of 62) and decreased neutrophil count, pancytopenia, and thrombocytopenia (two 3% each). One (2%) of 59 patients in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group experienced treatment-related death because of sepsis compared with two (3%) of 62 patients in the chemotherapy group: one because of sepsis and one because of pancytopenia. Interpretation Combination of pembrolizumab, carboplatin, and pemetrexed could be an effective and tolerable first-line treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. This finding is being further explored in an ongoing international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. Funding Merck & Co.
Summary Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, ...randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin LUX-Lung 3 or gemcitabine-cisplatin LUX-Lung 6), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion del19, Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 16% of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 15% of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 14% and 13 5%), paronychia (26 11% in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 5% in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 18% of 111 patients), fatigue (14 13%) and leucopenia (nine 8%) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 27% of 113 patients), vomiting (22 19%), and leucopenia (17 15%). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
Summary Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive ...non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months 95% CI 10·6–12·9 with afatinib vs 10·9 months 9·1–11·5 with gefitinib; hazard ratio HR 0·73 95% CI 0·57–0·95, p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months 95% CI 11·9–15·0 with afatinib vs 11·5 months 10·1–13·1 with gefitinib; HR 0·73 95% CI 0·58–0·92, p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 13% of 160 patients given afatinib vs two 1% of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 9% patients given afatinib vs five 3% of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 9% of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR -mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
Summary Background Optimum management strategies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are undefined. We aimed to ...assess the efficacy and safety of continuing gefitinib combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with EGFR -mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-line gefitinib. Methods The randomised, phase 3, multicentre IMPRESS study was done in 71 centres in 11 countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, chemotherapy-naive, stage IIIB–IV EGFR -mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with previous disease control with first-line gefitinib and recent disease progression (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central block randomisation to oral gefitinib 250 mg or placebo once daily in tablet form; randomisation did not include stratification factors. All patients also received the platinum-based doublet chemotherapy cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on the first day of each cycle. After completion of a maximum of six chemotherapy cycles, patients continued their randomly assigned treatment until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. All study investigators and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study has completed enrolment, but patients are still in follow-up for overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01544179. Findings Between March 29, 2012, and Dec 20, 2013, 265 patients were randomly assigned: 133 to the gefitinib group and 132 to the placebo group. At the time of data cutoff (May 5, 2014), 98 (74%) patients had disease progression in the gefitinib group compared with 107 (81%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·65–1·13; p=0·27; median progression-free survival 5·4 months in both groups 95% CI 4·5–5·7 in the gefitinib group and 4·6–5·5 in the placebo group). The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (85 64% of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 81 61% of 132 patients in the placebo group) and decreased appetite (65 49% and 45 34%). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were anaemia (11 8% of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and five 4% of 132 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (nine 7% and seven 5%). 37 (28%) of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 28 (21%) of 132 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. Interpretation Continuation of gefitinib after radiological disease progression on first-line gefitinib did not prolong progression-free survival in patients who received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as subsequent line of treatment. Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy remains the standard of care in this setting. Funding AstraZeneca.
Summary Background Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB-family blocker, has shown preclinical activity when tested in EGFR mutant models with mutations that confer resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase ...inhibitors. We aimed to assess its efficacy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with previous treatment failure on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Methods In this phase 2b/3 trial, we enrolled patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance (ECOG) performance score of 0–2 who had received one or two previous chemotherapy regimens and had disease progression after at least 12 weeks of treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. We used a computer-generated sequence to randomly allocate patients (2:1) to either afatinib (50 mg per day) or placebo; all patients received best supportive care. Randomisation was done in blocks of three and was stratified by sex and baseline ECOG performance status (0–1 vs 2). Investigators, patients, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (from date of randomisation to death), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00656136. Findings Between May 26, 2008, and Sept 21, 2009, we identified 697 patients, 585 of whom were randomly allocated to treatment (390 to afatinib, 195 to placebo). Median overall survival was 10·8 months (95% CI 10·0–12·0) in the afatinib group and 12·0 months (10·2–14·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·86–1·35; p=0·74). Median progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group (3·3 months, 95% CI 2·79–4·40) than it was in the placebo group (1·1 months, 0·95–1·68; hazard ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·31–0·48; p<0·0001). No complete responses to treatment were noted; 29 (7%) patients had a partial response in the afatinib group, as did one patient in the placebo group. Subsequent cancer treatment was given to 257 (68%) patients in the afatinib group and 153 (79%) patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events in the afatinib group were diarrhoea (339 87% of 390 patients; 66 17% were grade 3) and rash or acne (305 78% patients; 56 14% were grade 3). These events occurred less often in the placebo group (18 9% of 195 patients had diarrhoea; 31 16% had rash or acne), all being grade 1 or 2. Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 39 (10%) patients in the afatinib group and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group. We recorded two possibly treatment-related deaths in the afatinib group. Interpretation Although we recorded no benefit in terms of overall survival with afatinib (which might have been affected by cancer treatments given after progression in both groups), our findings for progression-free survival and response to treatment suggest that afatinib could be of some benefit to patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma who have failed at least 12 weeks of previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.
Summary Background Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB-family blocker with preclinical activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in ...patients with lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations. Methods In this phase 2 study, we enrolled patients from 30 centres in Taiwan and the USA with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb with pleural effusion or stage IV) with EGFR mutations, who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and no previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We tested two afatinib starting doses: 50 mg daily and subsequently 40 mg daily, introduced to establish whether tolerability could be improved with retention of anti-tumour activity. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response), on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (independent review). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00525148. Findings 129 patients were treated with afatinib, 99 with a starting dose of 50 mg and 30 with a starting dose of 40 mg. 79 (61%) of 129 patients had an objective response (two complete responses, 77 partial responses). 70 (66%) of the 106 patients with the two common activating EGFR mutations (deletion 19 or L858R) had an objective response, as did nine (39%) of 23 patients with less common mutations. Similar proportions of patients had an objective response when analysed by starting dose (18 60% of 30 patients at 40 mg vs 61 62% of 99 patients at 50 mg). Of the two most common adverse events (diarrhoea and rash or acne), grade 3 events were more common in patients receiving a 50 mg starting dose (22 22% of 99 patients for diarrhoea and 28 28% of 99 patients for rash or acne) than they were in those receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two 7% of 30 patients for both diarrhoea and rash or acne); possibly treatment-related serious adverse events were also less common in patients receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two of 30 patients vs 14 of 99 patients). We recorded one possibly drug-related death (interstitial lung disease). Interpretation Afatinib shows activity in the treatment of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, especially in patients with deletion 19 or L858R mutations. The efficacy of afatinib 40 mg should be compared with chemotherapy or other EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.
PDF
