Dariusz M. Kowalski

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial

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.

Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): a multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial

BACKGROUND New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma. METHODS DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374. FINDINGS Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8-8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9-8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·76-1·12], p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 [9%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 [14%] patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (26 [7%] vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 [18%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs one [<1%] patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [8%] vs 24 [13%]), and colitis (24 [6%] vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three [1%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs two [1%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three [1%] vs two [1%]); respiratory failure (one [<1%] vs three [2%]), myocardial infarction (three [1%] vs none), lung infection (three [1%] patients vs none), cardiac failure (one [<1%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (two [<1%] vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient. INTERPRETATION Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing. FUNDING AstraZeneca.

DISRUPT: A randomised phase 2 trial of ombrabulin (AVE8062) plus a taxane-platinum regimen as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND DISRUPT evaluated whether adding the vascular-disrupting agent ombrabulin to a taxane-platinum doublet in the first-line setting improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Patients were randomised to ombrabulin 35 mg/m(2) or placebo followed by a taxane-platinum regimen every 3 weeks. RESULTS Overall, 176 patients were randomised. After 124 events, median PFS was not significantly improved with ombrabulin vs placebo (5.65 vs 5.45 months; HR 0.948; 60% CI 0.813-1.106; one-sided P=0.39). The two groups showed similar overall survival (median 11.0 months in both groups), objective response rate (32% ombrabulin; 31% placebo) and safety profiles. CONCLUSION This study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving PFS by adding ombrabulin to a taxane-platinum regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC.

The Qualification of Docetaxel or Erlotinib for Second-Line Therapy Should Be Based on Clinical and Molecular Predictive Factors

Background: We evaluated the effectiveness of docetaxel or erlotinib in second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and focused on the impact of predictive factors on the outcome of therapy. Methods: 204 patients with progressive disease after platinum-based therapy were enrolled: 102 received an infusion of 75 mg/m2 of docetaxel and 102 received 150 mg of erlotinib orally. Results: Response rate (RR) was 6.9 and 8.8% for docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.2 months for docetaxel and 1.6 months for erlotinib (hazard ratio, HR = 1.2, p = 0.17). Overall survival was 5.5 versus 7 months for docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively (HR = 1.35, p = 0.06). Using Cox regression, we found clinical factors (performance status and weight loss) with predictive values for RR and PFS in second-line-treated patients. Prior radiotherapy, smoking status and EGFR mutation might help to predict outcome of erlotinib treatment and βIII-tubulin mRNA expression that of docetaxel, but histopathological diagnosis did not have any predictive value. Conclusions: Erlotinib and docetaxel show similar efficacy in the treatment of NSCLC. The application of predictive factors may facilitate qualification for second-line treatment with both drugs.

Polymorphisms in TS, MTHFR and ERCC1 genes as predictive markers in first‑line platinum and pemetrexed therapy in NSCLC patients

AbstractPurpose We presented retrospective analysis of up to five polymorphisms in TS, MTHFR and ERCC1 genes as molecular predictive markers for homogeneous Caucasian, non-squamous NSCLC patients treated with pemetrexed and platinum front-line chemotherapy.MethodsThe following polymorphisms in DNA isolated from 115 patients were analyzed: various number of 28-bp tandem repeats in 5′-UTR region of TS gene, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) within the second tandem repeat of TS gene (G>C); 6-bp deletion in 3′-UTR region of the TS (1494del6); 677C>T SNP in MTHFR; 19007C>T SNP in ERCC1. Molecular examinations’ results were correlated with disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival.ResultsPolymorphic tandem repeat sequence (2R, 3R) in the enhancer region of TS gene and G>C SNP within the second repeat of 3R allele seem to be important for the effectiveness of platinum and pemetrexed in first-line chemotherapy. The insignificant shortening of PFS in 3R/3R homozygotes as compared to 2R/2R and 2R/3R genotypes were observed, while it was significantly shorter in patients carrying synchronous 3R allele and G nucleotide. The combined analysis of TS VNTR and MTHFR 677C>T SNP revealed shortening of PFS in synchronous carriers of 3R allele in TS and two C alleles in MTHFR. The strongest factors increased the risk of progression were poor PS, weight loss, anemia and synchronous presence of 3R allele and G nucleotide in the second repeat of 3R allele in TS. Moreover, lack of application of second-line chemotherapy, weight loss and poor performance status and above-mentioned genotype of TS gene increased risk of early mortality.ConclusionThe examined polymorphisms should be accounted as molecular predictor factors for pemetrexed- and platinum-based front-line chemotherapy in non-squamous NSCLC patients.

Prognostic score for second-line chemotherapy of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: External validation in a phase III trial comparing vinflunine with docetaxel

A prognostic index for second-line chemotherapy of NSCLC was previously developed, based on individual patient data (IPD) of nine randomized trials. In order to validate the prognostic score in an external dataset, we analysed IPD of a non-inferiority phase III trial comparing vinflunine vs. docetaxel in second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Primary endpoint of this analysis was overall survival (OS). The following variables were considered for survival analysis and score calculation: gender, performance status, stage of disease, tumour histology, type of first-line treatment, response to first-line treatment. Cox model, stratified by treatment arm, was used for multivariate analysis. Individual prognostic scores were derived, and patients were divided into 3 categories: <5 (best), 5-9 (intermediate), >9 (worst). All 551 patients enrolled in the trial had complete information for the calculation of prognostic score. Median OS in the whole group was 6.9 months, with similar efficacy in the two treatment arms. Median OS was 12.9, 6.9 and 3.8 months in the best, intermediate and worst category, respectively. Cox model showed a significant effect comparing intermediate vs. best category (Hazard Ratio 1.79, 95%CI 1.31-2.47, p=0.0003) and comparing worst vs. best category (Hazard Ratio 3.25, 95%CI 2.18-4.83, p<0.0001). The C-index of the model was high (0.926), indicating a good discrimination according to the proposed three risk categories. Prognostic ability of our score for candidates to second-line treatment in advanced NSCLC was successfully validated, allowing the identification of subgroups of patients with more vs. less favourable outcome. Prognostic score could be useful in daily decision-making in clinical practise, because a better understanding of factors conditioning life expectancy of patients could greatly help a careful evaluation of risks and benefits associated with therapeutic decisions.

Evaluation of Antitumor Activity Using Change in Tumor Size of the Survivin Antisense Oligonucleotide LY2181308 in Combination with Docetaxel for Second-Line Treatment of Patients with Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Open-Label Phase II Study

Chemoresistance is mediated, in part, by the inhibition of apoptosis in tumor cells. Survivin is an antiapoptotic protein that blocks chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. To investigate whether blocking survivin expression enhances docetaxel-induced apoptosis in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we compared the antitumor activity of the survivin inhibitor LY2181308 plus docetaxel with docetaxel alone. We used change in tumor size (CTS) as a primary endpoint to assess its use in early decision-making for this and future studies of novel agents in NSCLC. Patients (N = 162) eligible for second-line NSCLC treatment (stage IIIB/IV) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomized 2:1 to receive LY2181308 (750 mg intravenously, weekly) and docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously, day 1) or docetaxel alone every 21 days. CTS from baseline to the end of cycle 2 was compared between the two treatment arms. The mean (SD) tumor size ratio for LY2181308/docetaxel and docetaxel was 1.05 (0.21) and 1.00 (0.15) (p = 0.200), respectively, suggesting no significant improvement in antitumor activity between the arms. Because there was also no significant difference between the two arms for progression-free survival (PFS) (2.83 months with LY2181308/docetaxel and 3.35 months with docetaxel [p = 0.191]), both arms were combined. Using the combined arms, CTS correlated with PFS (PFS = 4.63 months in patients with decreased CTS compared with 2.66 months in patients with increased CTS), supporting its use in early decision-making in phase II studies.

Concurrent chemotherapy and short course radiotherapy in patients with stage IIIA to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer not eligible for radical treatment: results of a randomized phase II study.

Introduction: The optimal treatment for patients with stage IIIA to IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not eligible for surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate concurrent chemotherapy and palliative radiotherapy. Methods: Patients with stage IIIA to IIIB NSCLC with tumor >8 cm and/or forced expiratory volume ≤40%, performance status 0 to 2, and tumor-related chest symptoms were randomly assigned to arm A: radiotherapy alone (30 Gy/10 fractions) or arm B: chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by radiotherapy together with third cycle). Primary end point was response rate, the power of the study was 90%, and the significance level was p = 0.1. Results: A total of 99 patients were eligible for response, overall survival, and progression-free survival evaluation. Median age was 66 years (45–78 years). Response rate was 27% versus 53%, p = 0.08; median overall survival was 9.0 versus 12.9 months, p = 0.0342; and median progression-free survival was 4.7 versus 7.3 months, p = 0.046, in arm A versus arm B, respectively. There were no deaths during treatment in arm A and six deaths in arm B; no hematological G3 to G4 toxicities in arm A and 14 toxicities in arm B. Symptom control was high and similar in both arms. Conclusions: Upfront chemotherapy combined with palliative radiotherapy (30 Gy) is a promising treatment option in the subpopulation of patients with stage IIIA to IIIB NSCLC not amenable for definitive chemoradiotherapy and deserves further investigation.

The Applicability of a Predictive Index for Second- and Third-Line Treatment of Unselected Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors of EGFR (TKI-EGFR) induced response in only 10% of Caucasian non-small-cell lung cancer patients in second- or third-line treatment. Independent predictive factors for qualification to TKI-EGFR treatment have not been assessed. In 2008, a prognostic index was reported for patients treated with erlotinib in the BR.21 trial, but its application for real, unselected patients is limited. Objectives: Based on clinical and molecular factors of patients treated with erlotinib, we tried to create a predictive index which could be applied in real treatment practice. Methods: In a Cox regression model, we established 6 factors which affected overall survival for erlotinib treatment: performance status, erlotinib-induced rash, time from diagnosis to treatment, gender, weight loss and LDH level. We analyzed the risk factors of early progression and survival shorter than 6 months. In addition we included: time from first-line chemotherapy to erlotinib treatment, smoking status, mutation status in EGFR and anemia. Results: Our model consisted of 10 factors that were assigned points according to HR or χ2 and p value. The score was used to separate patients into 4 risk categories of unfavorable disease course based on 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles: low risk (I), intermediate low risk (II), intermediate high risk (III) and high risk (IV). Survival probability was significantly higher for group I, intermediate for groups II and III, and significantly lower for group IV (χ2 = 49.5, p < 0.0001). Based on the previously reported index we could not qualify our patients for the low risk group. Conclusions: Our model could be useful for qualification for erlotinib treatment of patients with numerous adverse factors and limited access to genetic examination.

Genetic and immune factors underlying the efficacy of cetuximab and panitumumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Efficacy of monoclonal anti-EGFR antibodies (cetuximab, panitumumab) used in combination with chemotherapy or alone has been demonstrated in clinical trials of patients with mCRC. Both drugs block signaling EGFR pathway in malignant cells (blocking ligand binding and EGFR dimerization). Obtaining treatment responses with anti-EGFR agents is possible only in a selected subgroup of patients with mCRC. Successful treatment with cetuximab and panitumab is possible almost exclusively in patients without RAS mutations. Research on predictive value of EGFR gene copy number, PI3KCA gene mutations, P53 and PTEN, and EGFR their ligands concentrations is ongoing. Cetuximab, as IgG1 class antibody, can cause antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity against neoplasm cells, while panitumumab, as IgG2 class antibody, does not induce such effect. Therefore a potential predictor cetuximab therapy may be the presence of different polymorphic forms of the genes for receptor immunoglobulin Fc fragments: FcγRIIa and FcγRIII subclasses.