Fabrice Barlesi

Ipilimumab in Combination With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin As First-Line Treatment in Stage IIIB/IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Phase II Study

PURPOSE Ipilimumab, which is an anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.

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.

Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab+paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). DESIGN Patients (n=130) with chemotherapy-naïve ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the curve=6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab+paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo+paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo+paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab+paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Phased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio)=0.64; P=0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR=0.93; P=0.37) or OS (HR=0.75; P=0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively. CONCLUSION These results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Onartuzumab in Combination With Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Increased hepatocyte growth factor/MET signaling is associated with poor prognosis and acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -targeted drugs in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether dual inhibition of MET/EGFR results in clinical benefit in patients with NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with recurrent NSCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive onartuzumab plus erlotinib or placebo plus erlotinib; crossover was allowed at progression. Tumor tissue was required to assess MET status by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET-positive (MET IHC diagnostic positive) populations; additional end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS There was no improvement in PFS or OS in the ITT population (n = 137; PFS hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; P = .69; OS HR, 0.80; P = .34). MET-positive patients (n = 66) treated with erlotinib plus onartuzumab showed improvement in both PFS (HR, .53; P = .04) and OS (HR, .37; P = .002). Conversely, clinical outcomes were worse in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab plus erlotinib (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.82; P = .05; OS HR, 1.78; P = .16). MET-positive control patients had worse outcomes versus MET-negative control patients (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.71; P = .06; OS HR, 2.61; P = .004). Incidence of peripheral edema was increased in onartuzumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION Onartuzumab plus erlotinib was associated with improved PFS and OS in the MET-positive population. These results combined with the worse outcomes observed in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab highlight the importance of diagnostic testing in drug development.

Phase III Trial of Vandetanib Compared With Erlotinib in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Global Histone Modifications Predict Prognosis of Resected Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Epigenetic modifications may contribute to the development and progression of cancer. We investigated whether epigenetic changes involving multiple histones influence prognosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS We used immunohistochemistry to assess histone 3 lysine 4 dimethylation (H3K4diMe), and acetylation of histone 2A lysine 5 (H2AK5Ac), histone 2B lysine 12, histone 3 lysine 9 (H3K9Ac), and histone 4 lysine 8 in resected tumor samples of 138 NSCLC patients. Data were analyzed using a recursive partitioning analysis (RPA). RESULTS The RPA classified the patients into seven distinct prognostic groups based on TNM stage (first node), histology, and histone modifications: H3K4diMe (< or 85% tumor cells), H3K9Ac (< or 68% tumor cells), and H2AK5Ac (< or 5% tumor cells). The seven groups were associated with significantly different disease-free (P < .0001) and overall survival (P < .0001). Interestingly, the four groups determined by stage I patients (below the first node) displayed dramatic differences in survival (median, 10 months in adenocarcinoma patients with H3K9Ac 68% v 147 months in nonadenocarcinoma patients with H3K4diMe 85%). A Cox model retained age and RPA groups as the sole independent factors significantly influencing overall survival. CONCLUSION The prognostic influence of epigenetic changes involving multiple histones, in particular H2A and H3, is greater in early NSCLC, and evaluation of these changes may help in selecting early-stage NSCLC patients for adjuvant treatment. Our observations provide a rationale for the use of a combination of standard chemotherapy with drugs interacting with histone modifications, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Maintenance Bevacizumab With or Without Pemetrexed After First-Line Induction With Bevacizumab, Cisplatin, and Pemetrexed in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: AVAPERL (MO22089)

PURPOSE Maintenance therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but few studies have compared active agents in this setting. AVAPERL evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed as continuation maintenance treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received first-line bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those achieving response or stable disease were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to maintenance bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment. RESULTS In total, 376 patients received induction treatment, 71.9% achieved disease control, and 67.3% were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, with 125 and 128 receiving single-agent bevacizumab and bevacizumab plus pemetrexed treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the bevacizumab plus pemetrexed arm (median, 3.7 v 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; P < .001) per a stratified model. The PFS benefit extended across age, performance status, smoking history, and induction response (stable disease v partial response) subgroups. Any grade, grade ≥ 3, and serious adverse events occurred more often with bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION In an unselected population of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC who had achieved disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit compared with bevacizumab alone. The combination was well tolerated.

Crizotinib Therapy for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma and a ROS1 Rearrangement: Results From the EUROS1 Cohort

PURPOSE Approximately 1% of lung adenocarcinomas are driven by oncogenic ROS1 rearrangement. Crizotinib is a potent inhibitor of both ROS1 and ALK kinase domains. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the absence of a prospective clinical trial in Europe, we conducted a retrospective study in centers that tested for ROS1 rearrangement. Eligible patients had stage IV lung adenocarcinoma, had ROS1 rearrangement according to fluorescent in situ hybridization, and had received crizotinib therapy through an individual off-label use. Best response was assessed locally using RECIST (version 1.1). All other data were analyzed centrally. RESULTS We identified 32 eligible patients. One patient was excluded because next-generation sequencing was negative for ROS1 fusion. Median age was 50.5 years, 64.5% of patients were women, and 67.7% were never-smokers. Thirty patients were evaluable for progression-free survival (PFS), and 29 patients were evaluable for best response. We observed four patients with disease progression, two patients with stable disease, and objective response in 24 patients, including five complete responses (overall response rate, 80%; disease control rate, 86.7%). Median PFS was 9.1 months, and the PFS rate at 12 months was 44%. No unexpected adverse effects were observed. Twenty-six patients received pemetrexed (either alone or in combination with platinum and either before or after crizotinib) and had a response rate of 57.7% and a median PFS of 7.2 months. CONCLUSION Crizotinib was highly active at treating lung cancer in patients with a ROS1 rearrangement, suggesting that patients with lung adenocarcinomas should be tested for ROS1. Prospective clinical trials with crizotinib and other ROS1 inhibitors are ongoing or planned.

Randomized, Phase III Study of Gemcitabine or Erlotinib Maintenance Therapy Versus Observation, With Predefined Second-Line Treatment, After Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Induction Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This phase III study investigated whether continuation maintenance with gemcitabine or switch maintenance with erlotinib improves clinical outcome compared with observation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease was controlled after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred sixty-four patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC without tumor progression after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomly assigned to observation or to gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle) or daily erlotinib (150 mg/day) study arms. On disease progression, patients in all three arms received pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) as predefined second-line therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS PFS was significantly prolonged by gemcitabine (median, 3.8 v 1.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.72; log-rank P < .001) and erlotinib (median, 2.9 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; log-rank P = .003) versus observation; this benefit was consistent across all clinical subgroups. Both maintenance strategies resulted in a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival (OS); patients who received second-line pemetrexed or with a performance status of 0 appeared to derive greater benefit. Exploratory analysis showed that magnitude of response to induction chemotherapy may affect the OS benefit as a result of gemcitabine maintenance. Maintenance gemcitabine and erlotinib were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION Gemcitabine continuation maintenance or erlotinib switch maintenance significantly reduces disease progression in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy. Response to induction chemotherapy may affect OS only for continuation maintenance.

CYFRA 21-1 is a prognostic determinant in non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a meta-analysis in 2063 patients.

The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of a high pretreatment serum CYFRA 21-1 level (a cytokeratin 19 fragment) adjusted for the effects of well-known co-variables in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis based on individual updated data gathered comprehensive databases from published or unpublished controlled studies dealing with the prognostic effect of serum CYFRA 21-1 level at presentation in NSCLC of any stage (nine institutions, 2063 patients). Multivariate regression was carried out with the Cox model. The proportional hazard assumption for each of the selected variables retained in the final model was originally checked by log minus log plots baseline hazard ratio. The follow-up ranged from 25 to 78 months. A total of 1616 events were recorded. In the multivariate analysis performed at the 1-year end point, a high pretreatment CYFRA 21-1 level was an unfavourable prognostic determinant in all centres except one (Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.88 (1.64–2.15), P<10−4). Other significant variables were stage of the disease, age and performance status. Within the first 18 months, the procedure disclosed a nearly similar hazard ratio for patients having a high pretreatment serum CYFRA 21-1 level (1.62 (1.42–1.86), P<10−4). For patients who did not undergo surgery, the hazard ratio during the first year of follow-up was 1.78 (1.54–2.07), P<10−4. Finally, in the surgically treated population, at the 2-year end point, a high pretreatment CYFRA 21-1 and a locally advanced stage remained unfavourable prognostic determinants. In conclusion CYFRA 21-1 might be regarded as a putative co-variable in analysing NSCLC outcome inasmuch as a high serum level is a significant determinant of poor prognosis whatever the planned treatment.