Summary Background Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, ...reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02008227. Findings Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months 95% CI 11·8–15·7 vs 9·6 months 8·6–11·2; hazard ratio HR 0·73 95% CI 0·62–0·87, p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months 95% CI 12·6–18·0 with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months 8·8–12·0 with docetaxel; HR 0·74 95% CI 0·58–0·93; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 95% CI 0·59–0·96). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 95% CI 0·54–0·98; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 0·60–0·89; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 15% of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 43% of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. Interpretation To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. Funding F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.
Summary Background Outcomes are poor for patients with previously treated, advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab ...is clinically active against cancer, including NSCLC, especially cancers expressing PD-L1 on tumour cells, tumour-infiltrating immune cells, or both. We assessed efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in previously treated NSCLC, analysed by PD-L1 expression levels on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells and in the intention-to-treat population. Methods In this open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial, patients with NSCLC who progressed on post-platinum chemotherapy were recruited in 61 academic medical centres and community oncology practices across 13 countries in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), and adequate haematological and end-organ function. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 tumour-infiltrating immune cell status, histology, and previous lines of therapy, and randomly assigned (1:1) by permuted block randomisation (with a block size of four) using an interactive voice or web system to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks. Baseline PD-L1 expression was scored by immunohistochemistry in tumour cells (as percentage of PD-L1-expressing tumour cells TC3≥50%, TC2≥5% and <50%, TC1≥1% and <5%, and TC0<1%) and tumour-infiltrating immune cells (as percentage of tumour area: IC3≥10%, IC2≥5% and <10%, IC1≥1% and <5%, and IC0<1%). The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and PD-L1 subgroups at 173 deaths. Biomarkers were assessed in an exploratory analysis. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01903993. Findings Patients were enrolled between Aug 5, 2013, and March 31, 2014. 144 patients were randomly allocated to the atezolizumab group, and 143 to the docetaxel group. 142 patients received at least one dose of atezolizumab and 135 received docetaxel. Overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 12·6 months (95% CI 9·7–16·4) for atezolizumab versus 9·7 months (8·6–12·0) for docetaxel (hazard ratio HR 0·73 95% CI 0·53–0·99; p=0·04). Increasing improvement in overall survival was associated with increasing PD-L1 expression (TC3 or IC3 HR 0·49 0·22–1·07; p=0·068, TC2/3 or IC2/3 HR 0·54 0·33–0·89; p=0·014, TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 HR 0·59 0·40–0·85; p=0·005, TC0 and IC0 HR 1·04 0·62–1·75; p=0·871). In our exploratory analysis, patients with pre-existing immunity, defined by high T-effector–interferon-γ-associated gene expression, had improved overall survival with atezolizumab. 11 (8%) patients in the atezolizumab group discontinued because of adverse events versus 30 (22%) patients in the docetaxel group. 16 (11%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus 52 (39%) patients in the docetaxel group had treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events, and one (<1%) patient in the atezolizumab group versus three (2%) patients in the docetaxel group died from a treatment-related adverse event. Interpretation Atezolizumab significantly improved survival compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC. Improvement correlated with PD-L1 immunohistochemistry expression on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells, suggesting that PD-L1 expression is predictive for atezolizumab benefit. Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile distinct from chemotherapy. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech Inc.
Long-term (LT) androgen suppression (AS) with radiation therapy (RT) is a standard treatment of high-risk, localized prostate cancer (PCa). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9902 was a randomized ...trial testing the hypothesis that adjuvant combination chemotherapy (CT) with paclitaxel, estramustine, and oral etoposide plus LT AS plus RT would improve overall survival (OS).
Patients with high-risk PCa (prostate-specific antigen 20-100 ng/mL and Gleason score GS ≥ 7 or clinical stage ≥ T2 and GS ≥ 8) were randomized to RT and AS (AS + RT) alone or with adjuvant CT (AS + RT + CT). CT was given as four 21-day cycles, delivered beginning 28 days after 70.2 Gy of RT. AS was given as luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone for 24 months, beginning 2 months before RT plus an oral antiandrogen for 4 months before and during RT. The study was designed based on a 6% improvement in OS from 79% to 85% at 5 years, with 90% power and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.
A total of 397 patients (380 eligible) were randomized. The patients had high-risk PCa, 68% with GS 8 to 10 and 34% T3 to T4 tumors, and median prostate-specific antigen of 22.6 ng/mL. The median follow-up period was 9.2 years. The trial closed early because of excess thromboembolic toxicity in the CT arm. The 10-year results for all randomized patients revealed no significant difference between the AS + RT and AS + RT + CT arms in OS (65% vs 63%; P=.81), biochemical failure (58% vs 54%; P=.82), local progression (11% vs 7%; P=.09), distant metastases (16% vs 14%; P=.42), or disease-free survival (22% vs 26%; P=.61).
NRG Oncology RTOG 9902 showed no significant differences in OS, biochemical failure, local progression, distant metastases, or disease-free survival with the addition of adjuvant CT to LT AS + RT. The trial results provide valuable data regarding the natural history of high-risk PCa treated with LT AS + RT and have implications for the feasibility of clinical trial accrual and tolerability using CT for PCa.
To compare dosimetric characteristics with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-identified imaging tumor volume (gross tumor volume, GTV), prostate clinical target volume and planning target ...volume, and organs at risk (OARs) for 2 treatment techniques representing 2 arms of an institutional phase 3 randomized trial of hypofractionated external beam image guided highly targeted radiation therapy.
Group 1 (n=20) patients were treated before the trial inception with the standard dose prescription. Each patient had an additional treatment plan generated per the experimental arm. A total of 40 treatment plans were compared (20 plans for each technique). Group 2 (n=15) consists of patients currently accrued to the hypofractionated external beam image guided highly targeted radiation therapy trial. Plans were created as per the treatment arm, with additional plans for 5 of the group 2 experimental arm with a 3-mm expansion in the imaging GTV.
For all plans in both patient groups, planning target volume coverage ranged from 95% to 100%; GTV coverage of 89.3 Gy for the experimental treatment plans ranged from 95.2% to 99.8%. For both groups 1 and 2, the percent volumes of rectum/anus and bladder receiving 40 Gy, 65 Gy, and 80 Gy were smaller in the experimental plans than in the standard plans. The percent volume at 1 Gy per fraction and 1.625 Gy per fraction were compared between the standard and the experimental arms, and these were found to be equivalent.
The dose per fraction to the OARs can be made equal even when giving a large simultaneous integrated boost to the GTV. The data suggest that a GTV margin may be added without significant dose effects on the OARs.
Summary Background COX-2 is overexpressed in some cancers, including prostate cancer; however, little is known about the effect of COX-2 overexpression on outcome in radiation-treated patients with ...prostate cancer. We aimed to study COX-2 overexpression and outcome in a well-defined cohort of men who received treatment with short-term androgen deprivation (STAD) plus radiotherapy or long-term androgen deprivation (LTAD) plus radiotherapy. Methods Men with prostate cancer who had participated in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 92-02 trial and for whom sufficient diagnostic tissue was available for immunohistochemical staining and image analysis of COX-2 expression were enrolled in this study. Patients in the 92-02 trial had been randomly assigned to treatment with STAD plus radiotherapy or LTAD plus radiotherapy. Multivariate analyses by Cox proportional hazards models were done to assess whether associations existed between COX-2 staining intensity and the RTOG 92-02 primary endpoints of biochemical failure (assessed by the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology ASTRO and Phoenix criteria), local failure, distant metastasis, cause-specific mortality, overall mortality, and any failure. Findings 586 patients with sufficient diagnostic tissue for immunohistochemical staining and image analysis of COX-2 expression were included in this study. In the multivariate analyses, the intensity of COX-2 staining as a continuous covariate was an independent predictor of distant metastasis (hazard ratio HR 1·181 95% CI 1·077–1·295, p=0·0004); biochemical failure by two definitions (ASTRO HR 1·073 1·018–1·131, p=0·008; Phoenix HR 1·073 1·014–1·134, p=0·014); and any failure (HR 1·068 1·015–1·124, p=0·011). The higher the expression of COX-2, the greater the chance of failure. As a dichotomous covariate, COX-2 overexpression seemed to be most discriminating of outcome for those who received STAD compared with those who received LTAD. Interpretation To our knowledge, this is the first study to establish an association of COX-2 expression with outcome in patients with prostate cancer who have had radiotherapy. Increasing COX-2 expression was significantly associated with biochemical failure, distant metastasis, and any failure. COX-2 inhibitors might improve patient response to radiotherapy in those treated with or without androgen deprivation. Our findings suggest that LTAD might overcome the effects of COX-2 overexpression. Therefore, COX-2 expression might be useful in selecting patients who need LTAD.
The epidemiology of lung cancer Williams, M D; Sandler, A B
Cancer treatment and research,
2001, Volume:
105
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Lung cancer continues to be the leader in cancer deaths in the United States. The incidence of lung cancer in men has slowly decreased since the late 1980s, but has just now begun to plateau in women ...at the end of this decade. Despite modest advances in chemotherapy for treating lung cancer, it remains a deadly disease with overall 5-yr survival rates having not increased significantly over the last 25 years, remaining at approximately 14%. Tobacco smoking causes approximately 85-90% of bronchogenic carcinoma. Environmental tobacco exposure or a second-hand smoke also may cause lung cancer in life-long non-smokers. Certain occupational agents such as arsenic, asbestos, chromium, nickel and vinyl chloride increase the relative risk for lung cancer. Smoking has an additive or multiplicative effect with some of these agents. Familial predisposition for lung cancer is an area with advancing research. Developments in molecular biology have led to growing interest in investigation of biological markers, which may increase predisposition to smoking-related carcinogenesis. Hopefully, in the future we will be able to screen for lung cancer by using specific biomarkers. Finally, dietary factors have also been proposed as potential risk modulators, with vitamins A, C and E proposed as having a protective effect. Despite the slow decline of smoking in the United States, lung cancer will likely continue its devastation for years to come.
PDF
