In KEYNOTE-189, first-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus pemetrexed-platinum in ...patients with metastatic nonsquamous non‒small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), irrespective of tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. We report an updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578680).
Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive pemetrexed and platinum plus pembrolizumab (n = 410) or placebo (n = 206) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, then pemetrexed maintenance plus pembrolizumab or placebo for up to a total of 35 cycles. Eligible patients with disease progression in the placebo-combination group could cross over to pembrolizumab monotherapy. Response was assessed per RECIST (version 1.1) by central review. No alpha was assigned to this updated analysis.
As of September 21, 2018 (median follow-up, 23.1 months), the updated median (95% CI) OS was 22.0 (19.5 to 25.2) months in the pembrolizumab-combination group versus 10.7 (8.7 to 13.6) months in the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70). Median (95% CI) PFS was 9.0 (8.1 to 9.9) months and 4.9 (4.7 to 5.5) months, respectively (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.58). Median (95% CI) time from randomization to objective tumor progression on next-line treatment or death from any cause, whichever occurred first (progression-free-survival-2; PFS-2) was 17.0 (15.1 to 19.4) months and 9.0 (7.6 to 10.4) months, respectively (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.59). OS and PFS benefits with pembrolizumab were observed regardless of PD-L1 expression or presence of liver/brain metastases. Incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events was similar in the pembrolizumab-combination (71.9%) and placebo-combination (66.8%) groups.
First-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum continued to demonstrate substantially improved OS and PFS in metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression or liver/brain metastases, with manageable safety and tolerability.
We report the final results of the phase 3 IMpower132 study evaluating atezolizumab plus carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (APP) in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.
Chemotherapy-naive patients ...with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC without sensitizing EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were randomized in a one-to-one ratio to receive four or six cycles of carboplatin or cisplatin plus pemetrexed (PP) or APP every 3 weeks, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab plus pemetrexed or pemetrexed alone. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).
The intention-to-treat population included 578 patients (APP, n = 292; PP, n = 286). At the primary PFS analysis (May 22, 2018; median follow-up, 14.8 mo), APP exhibited significant PFS improvement versus PP (median = 7.6 versus 5.2 mo, stratified hazard ratio HR = 0.60, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.49–0.72, p < 0.0001). OS for the APP group was numerically better but not statistically significant at the interim (May 22, 2018; median = 18.1 versus 13.6 mo, stratified HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64–1.03, p = 0.0797) and final analyses (July 18, 2019; median = 17.5 versus 13.6 mo; stratified HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.71–1.06, p = 0.1546). The OS and PFS results favored APP versus PP across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54.6% (APP) and 40.1% (PP) of patients; grade 5 treatment-related events occurred in 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively.
IMpower132 met its co-primary PFS end point but not its co-primary OS end point, with numerical improvement for OS in the APP arm. APP had a manageable safety profile, with no new or unexpected safety signals identified.
The immune surveillance system is complex and regulated by different actors. Programmed death protein-ligand 1 (PD-L1), the only approved biomarker in clinical practice, has proven to be imperfect in ...selecting patients to immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment. Therefore, new biomarkers, and new therapeutic targets, are needed to maximise the efficacy of immunotherapy. V-domain Ig Suppressor of T-cell Activation (VISTA) is a programmed death protein-1 (PD-1) homolog expressed on T cells and on antigen-presenting cells, which regulates processes of activation and repression of the immune system with not yet completely clarified mechanisms. Its blockage has demonstrated in vitro and in vivo antitumour activity. The clinical research of VISTA antagonists is ongoing. Particularly, CA-170, an orally delivered dual inhibitor of VISTA and PD-L1, has shown to have clinical efficacy in phase I and II clinical trials in different advanced solid tumour types. Further data are needed to define whether this drug class can become a new therapeutic option for patients with VISTA expressing cancers.
Summary Background Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK ...-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK -rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK -rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0–2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking block size of four; stratified by WHO performance status 0 vs 1–2 and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 investigator choice, every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01828112 , and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 34% to pemetrexed, 73 63% to docetaxel, and three 3% discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5–21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months 95% CI 4·1–6·9 for ceritinib vs 1·6 months 1·4–2·8 for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 0·36–0·67; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 11% in the ceritinib group vs 12 11% in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 21% of 115 vs two 2% of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 21% vs one 1%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 14% vs one 1% in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one 7% cerebrovascular accident and one 7% respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. Interpretation These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Purpose Osimertinib is an irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) selective for both EGFR-TKI sensitizing ( EGFRm) and T790M resistance mutations. AURA ...(NCT01802632) is a phase I/II clinical trial to determine the dose, safety, and efficacy of osimertinib. This article reports the results from the phase II extension component. Patients and Methods Patients with EGFR-TKI-pretreated EGFRm- and T790M-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received once-daily osimertinib 80 mg. T790M status was confirmed by central testing from a tumor sample taken after the most recent disease progression. Patients with asymptomatic, stable CNS metastases that did not require corticosteroids were allowed to enroll. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by independent radiology assessment. Secondary end points were disease control rate, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Patient-reported outcomes comprised an exploratory objective. Results In total, 201 patients received treatment, with a median treatment duration of 13.2 months at the time of data cutoff (November 1, 2015). In evaluable patients (n = 198), ORR was 62% (95% CI, 54% to 68%), and the disease control rate was 90% (95% CI, 85 to 94). Median duration of response in 122 responding patients was 15.2 months (95% CI, 11.3 to not calculable). Median PFS was 12.3 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 13.8). The most common possibly causally related adverse events (investigator assessed) were diarrhea (43%; grade ≥ 3, < 1%) and rash (grouped terms; 40%; grade ≥ 3, < 1%). Interstitial lung disease (grouped terms) was reported in eight patients (4%; grade 1, n = 2; grade 3, n = 3; grade 5, n = 3). Conclusion In patients with EGFRm T790M advanced NSCLC who progress after EGFR-TKI treatment, osimertinib provides a high ORR, encouraging PFS, and durable response.
Summary Background BRAF mutations act as an oncogenic driver via the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BRAF inhibition has shown antitumour ...activity in patients with BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC. Dual MAPK pathway inhibition with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC might improve efficacy over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy based on observations in BRAFV600 -mutant melanoma. We aimed to assess the antitumour activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC. Methods In this phase 2, multicentre, non-randomised, open-label study, we enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pretreated metastatic stage IV BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC who had documented tumour progression after at least one previous platinum-based chemotherapy and had had no more than three previous systemic anticancer therapies. Patients with previous BRAF or MEK inhibitor treatment were ineligible. Patients with brain metastases were allowed to enrol only if the lesions were asymptomatic, untreated (or stable more than 3 weeks after local therapy if treated), and measured less than 1 cm. Enrolled patients received oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) in continuous 21-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, which was assessed by intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (patients who received second-line or later treatment); safety was also assessed in this population and was assessed at least once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The study is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01336634. Findings Between Dec 20, 2013, and Jan 14, 2015, 59 patients from 30 centres in nine countries across North America, Europe, and Asia met eligibility criteria. Two patients who had previously been untreated due to protocol deviation were excluded; thus, 57 eligible patients were enrolled. 36 patients (63·2% 95% CI 49·3–75·6) achieved an investigator-assessed overall response. Serious adverse events were reported in 32 (56%) of 57 patients and included pyrexia in nine (16%), anaemia in three (5%), confusional state in two (4%), decreased appetite in two (4%), haemoptysis in two (4%), hypercalcaemia in two (4%), nausea in two (4%), and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in two (4%). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia in five patients (9%), hyponatraemia in four (7%), and anaemia in three (5%). Four patients died during the study from fatal adverse events judged to be unrelated to treatment (one retroperitoneal haemorrhage, one subarachnoid haemorrhage, one respiratory distress, and one from disease progression that was more severe than typical progression, as assessed by the investigator). Interpretation Dabrafenib plus trametinib could represent a new targeted therapy with robust antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with BRAFV600E -mutant NSCLC. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.
Summary Background The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Patients from 211 ...centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2–21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00805194. Findings Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8–11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months 95% CI 2·9–3·9 vs 2·7 months 2·6–2·8; hazard ratio HR 0·79 95% CI 0·68–0·92, p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8–36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months 95% CI 8·5–12·6 vs 7·9 months 6·7–9·1; HR 0·75 95% CI 0·60–0·92, p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months 95% CI 10·6–15·1 vs 10·3 months 95% CI 8·6–12·2; HR 0·83 95% CI 0·70–0·99, p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months 95% CI 8·8–11·2 vs 9·1 months 8·4–10·4; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83–1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 6·6% of 652 vs 17 2·6% of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 7·8% vs six 0·9%), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 3·4% vs three 0·5%). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three). Interpretation Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
A key challenge in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is improving outcomes for patients who have achieved at least stable disease after standard first-line therapy. ...Although current guidelines recommend a maximum of six cycles of first-line therapy, even in responding patients, recent trials have shown benefit with maintenance therapy.
We reviewed the English literature for randomized controlled trials on prolonged therapy for NSCLC conducted between January 1999 and January 2010. The search was supplemented by a review of abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings (2004 to 2010), the World Lung Cancer Conference (2007 to 2009), and the 2009 Joint European CanCer Organisation-European Society for Medical Oncology conference.
Several alternative strategies for prolongation of chemotherapy have been tested: these can be broadly categorized as continuation (prolongation of the first-line regimen until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or administration of a predefined greater number of treatment cycles), switch-maintenance (administration of an active agent immediately after completion of the initial course of chemotherapy), and continuation-maintenance (ongoing administration of a lower intensity version of the first-line chemotherapy regimen). These approaches differ from traditional second line, which is defined as treatment administered after documented clinical progression subsequent to first-line therapy.
There are no data to support continuation chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. Switch-maintenance trials with erlotinib and pemetrexed have demonstrated an improvement in overall survival. Thus far, continuation-maintenance has shown an improvement in progression-free survival, without an overall survival advantage.
Improved outcome has been shown in patients with synchronous oligometastatic (sOM) NSCLC when treated with radical intent. As a uniform definition of sOM NSCLC is lacking, we developed a definition ...and diagnostic criteria by a consensus process.
A pan-European multidisciplinary consensus group was established. Consensus questions were built on the basis of current controversies, and definitions were extracted from a survey, cases and a systematic review. This statement was formulated during a consensus meeting.
It was determined that definition of sOM NSCLC is relevant when a radical treatment that may modify the disease course (leading to long-term disease control) is technically feasible for all tumor sites with acceptable toxicity. On the basis of the review, a maximum of five metastases and three organs was proposed. Mediastinal lymph node involvement was not counted as a metastatic site. Fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography–computed tomography and brain imaging were considered mandatory. A dedicated liver magnetic resonance imaging scan was advised for a solitary liver metastasis, and thoracoscopy and biopsies of distant ipsilateral pleural sites were recommended for a solitary pleural metastasis. For mediastinal staging, fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography–computed tomography was deemed the minimum requirement, with pathological confirmation recommended if this influences the treatment strategy. Biopsy of a solitary metastatic location was mandated unless the multidisciplinary team is of the opinion that the risks outweigh the benefits.
A multidisciplinary consensus statement on the definition and staging of sOM NSCLC has been formulated. This statement will help to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials.
PDF
