Diego Cortinovis

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.

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity assessment: a critical revision of the currently available tools

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a frequent, potentially severe and dose-limiting side-effect of cancer treatment. Despite its clinical relevance that limits the use of several antineoplastic agents and even the future development of new anticancer drugs, several crucial aspects of CIPN remain unsolved, one of which is how to assess its occurrence and severity in the most effective and reliable way. CIPN severity is generally assessed using Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) scales, although it is well known that significant inter-observer disagreement exists using these scales. Moreover, most CTC scores mix impairment, disability and quality of life measures, which could lead to misinterpretation of the results and unpredictable under- or overestimation of the effect. This uncertainty may lead to different interpretations of the results of the same clinical trials by clinicians and also by regulatory agencies. The use of other types of scale based on clinical and instrumental examinations, or the use of self-administered questionnaires for patients, has not yet really improved the accuracy of CIPN assessment, although some of these tools are promising and deserve to be further validated. As a result, there is a general recognition that CIPN has still not been properly assessed and that improvements should be made. In this review, the available data regarding the different tools used to assess CIPN will be revised and their features will be critically examined, with a special focus on their reliability and reproducibility across examiners and, when available, through direct comparison.

Randomized multicenter Phase II trial of two different schedules of irinotecan combined with capecitabine as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

The aim of the current randomized Phase II study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine combined with irinotecan as first‐line treatment in metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC).

Clinical pattern and associations of oxaliplatin acute neurotoxicity: A prospective study in 170 patients with colorectal cancer

The objective of the current prospective, multicenter, international study was to trace the incidence and severity of acute oxaliplatin‐induced peripheral neuropathy (OXLIPN) and to determine its clinical pattern. The authors also specifically tested whether patients who had more symptoms of acute OXLIPN eventually would develop a more severe chronic, cumulative form of OXLIPN.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation: Review of the evidence

Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients.

Early predictors of oxaliplatin-induced cumulative neuropathy in colorectal cancer patients

Objectives Peripheral neuropathy ranks among the most common dose-limiting and disabling side-effect of oxaliplatin (OXA)-based chemotherapy. The aim of this prospective, multicentre study was to define early clinical and neurophysiological markers that may help to identify patients at risk of developing severe, treatment emergent, cumulative OXA-induced peripheral neuropathy (OXAIPN). Methods 200 colorectal cancer patients, scheduled to receive OXA-based chemotherapy, were prospectively followed. Detailed neurological assessment employing the clinical Total Neuropathy Score (TNSc), oncological rating scales (National Common Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria V.3) and nerve conduction studies (NCS) were performed at baseline, mid-treatment and at the end of chemotherapy. Symptoms of OXA-induced acute neurotoxicity were systematically recorded. Results According to TNSc, 36 (18%) patients developed grade 3 OXAIPN. These patients were predominantly men (p=0.005), presented a significant decrease in all NCS (p<0.001), reported more acute neuropathic symptoms (p<0.001) and received higher OXA cumulative dose (p=0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that three variables obtained at intermediate follow-up, namely, the number of acute symptoms (OR 1.9; CI 95% 1.2 to 3.2; p=0.012) and the >30% decrease in sensory nerve action potential amplitude from the baseline value in radial (OR 41.4; CI 95% 4.98 to 343.1; p=0.001) and dorsal sural nerves (OR 24.96; CI 95% 2.6 to 239.4; p=0.005) were independently associated with the risk of developing severe OXAIPN. Conclusions High-grade OXA neurotoxicity can be predicted by clinical and neurophysiological information obtained at mid-treatment. Neurological assessment of acute neuropathy symptoms and radial and dorsal sural nerves NCS should be carefully monitored to predict and hopefully prevent the induction of severe OXAIPN.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor mutation: implications for clinical practice and open issues.

Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Peripheral neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or capecitabine (XELOX): a prospective evaluation of 150 colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND To report our prospective experience on the incidence and pattern of oxaliplatin (OXA)-induced peripheral neuropathy (OXA-IPN) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with either FOLFOX-4 or XELoda + OXaliplatin (XELOX). PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred and fifty patients scheduled to be treated with either FOLFOX or XELOX for CRC were prospectively monitored at baseline and followed-up during chemotherapy. The incidence and severity of symptoms secondary to OXA-IPN were recorded using three different types of assessment, i.e. the motor and neurosensory National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria, version 3.0 (NCI-CTCv3), the clinical version of the total neuropathy score (TNSc) and electrophysiological scores. RESULTS Patients treated with either FOLFOX-4 or XELOX manifested similar incidence rates and severities of acute OXA-IPN. However, FOLFOX-4 was associated with increased incidence of chronic neurotoxicity, compared with XELOX-treated patients (n = 64/77 versus 44/73; P = 0.002), at a very similar OXA median cumulative dose during both regimens. Both the NCI-CTCv3 and TNSc demonstrated that the severity of cumulative OXA-IPN in FOLFOX-4-treated patients is higher than in those treated with XELOX. CONCLUSION The incidence of acute neurotoxicity during FOLFOX-4 therapy is similar to XELOX. However, it seems that FOLFOX-4 is more neurotoxic than XELOX in terms of cumulative OXA-IPN, despite comparable OXA cumulative dose.

Voltage‐gated sodium channel polymorphisms play a pivotal role in the development of oxaliplatin‐induced peripheral neurotoxicity: Results from a prospective multicenter study

The current prospective, multicenter study sought to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms of voltage‐gated sodium channels (SCNAs) genes that might confer susceptibility to an increased incidence and severity of oxaliplatin‐induced peripheral neuropathy (OXAIPN) in patients treated with either leucovorin, 5‐fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Advanced age and liability to oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: post hoc analysis of a prospective study

The aim of this post hoc analysis of data extracted from a prospective, multicenter study is to test in a large homogenous population of chemotherapy‐naïve patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with oxaliplatin (OXA)‐based chemotherapy whether advanced age increases the risk of developing OXA‐induced peripheral neuropathy (OXAIPN).