Felipe Cardenal

Screening for Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) confer hypersensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We evaluated the feasibility of large-scale screening for EGFR mutations in such patients and analyzed the association between the mutations and the outcome of erlotinib treatment. METHODS From April 2005 through November 2008, lung cancers from 2105 patients in 129 institutions in Spain were screened for EGFR mutations. The analysis was performed in a central laboratory. Patients with tumors carrying EGFR mutations were eligible for erlotinib treatment. RESULTS EGFR mutations were found in 350 of 2105 patients (16.6%). Mutations were more frequent in women (69.7%), in patients who had never smoked (66.6%), and in those with adenocarcinomas (80.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The mutations were deletions in exon 19 (62.2%) and L858R (37.8%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival for 217 patients who received erlotinib were 14 months and 27 months, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios for the duration of progression-free survival were 2.94 for men (P<0.001); 1.92 for the presence of the L858R mutation, as compared with a deletion in exon 19 (P=0.02); and 1.68 for the presence of the L858R mutation in paired serum DNA, as compared with the absence of the mutation (P=0.02). The most common adverse events were mild rashes and diarrhea; grade 3 cutaneous toxic effects were recorded in 16 patients (7.4%) and grade 3 diarrhea in 8 patients (3.7%). CONCLUSIONS Large-scale screening of patients with lung cancer for EGFR mutations is feasible and can have a role in decisions about treatment.

Randomized Phase III Study of Gemcitabine-Cisplatin Versus Etoposide-Cisplatin in the Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE We conducted a randomized trial to compare gemcitabine-cisplatin with etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary end point of the comparison was response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 135 chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) days 1 and 8 or etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV days 1 to 3 along with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV day 1. Both treatments were administered in 21-day cycles. One hundred thirty-three patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis of response. RESULTS The response rate (externally validated) for patients given gemcitabine-cisplatin was superior to that for patients given etoposide-cisplatin (40.6% v 21.9%; P = .02). This superior response rate was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression (6.9 months v 4.3 months; P = .01) without an impairment in quality of life (QOL). There was no statistically significant difference in survival time between both arms (8.7 months for gemcitabine-cisplatin v 7.2 months for etoposide-cisplatin; P = .18). The overall toxicity profile for both combinations of drugs was similar. Nausea and vomiting were reported more frequently in the gemcitabine arm than in the etoposide arm. However, the difference was not significant. Gemcitabine-cisplatin produced less grade 3 alopecia (13% v 51%) and less grade 4 neutropenia (28% v 56% ) but more grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (56% v 13%) than did etoposide-cisplatin. However, there were no thrombocytopenia-related complications in the gemcitabine arm. CONCLUSION Compared with etoposide-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin provides a significantly higher response rate and a delay in disease progression without impairing QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Phase II Study of the Anti–Insulin-Like Growth Factor Type 1 Receptor Antibody CP-751,871 in Combination With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Previously Untreated, Locally Advanced, or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE We conducted a phase II study of combination of the anti-insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor antibody CP-751,871 with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PCI) in advanced treatment-naïve non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), carboplatin (area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 6), and CP-751,871 10 to 20 mg/kg (PCI(10), PCI(20)) or paclitaxel and carboplatin alone (PC) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. PCI(10-20) patients could continue CP-751,871 (figitumumab) treatment after chemotherapy discontinuation. Patients treated with PC experiencing disease progression were eligible to receive CP-751,871 at investigators discretion. An additional nonrandomized single-arm cohort of 30 patients with nonadenocarcinoma tumor histology receiving PCI(20) was enrolled on completion of the randomized study. RESULTS A total of 156 patients were enrolled onto the randomized portion of the study. Safety and efficacy information are available for 151 patients (98 patients treated with PCI and 53 patients treated with PC). Forty-eight patients treated with PCI received PCI(10) and 50 patients received PCI(20) in two sequential stages. Twenty of 53 patients treated with PC received CP-751,871 after disease progression. PCI was well tolerated. Fifty-four percent of patients treated with PCI and 42% of patients treated with PC had objective responses. Sixteen of 23 patients assessable for efficacy in the nonrandomized single-arm extension cohort also responded to treatment. Of note, 14 of 18 randomly assigned and 11 of 14 nonrandomly assigned patients treated with PCI with squamous cell carcinoma histology had response to treatment, including nine objective responses in bulky disease. Responses were also observed in two patients with squamous histology receiving CP-751,871 on PC discontinuation. PCI(20)/PC hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.8 to 0.56, according to censorship. CONCLUSION These data suggest that PCI(20) is safe and effective in patients with NSCLC.

Pretreatment EGFR T790M Mutation and BRCA1 mRNA Expression in Erlotinib-Treated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients with EGFR Mutations

Purpose: Advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (deletion in exon 19 or L858R) show an impressive progression-free survival of 14 months when treated with erlotinib. However, the presence of EGFR mutations can only imperfectly predict outcome. We hypothesized that progression-free survival could be influenced both by the pretreatment EGFR T790M mutation and by components of DNA repair pathways. Experimental Design: We assessed the T790M mutation in pretreatment diagnostic specimens from 129 erlotinib-treated advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations. The expression of eight genes and two proteins involved in DNA repair and four receptor tyrosine kinases was also examined. Results: The EGFR T790M mutation was observed in 45 of 129 patients (35%). Progression-free survival was 12 months in patients with and 18 months in patients without the T790M mutation (P = 0.05). Progression-free survival was 27 months in patients with low BRCA1 mRNA levels, 18 months in those with intermediate levels, and 10 months in those with high levels (P = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, the presence of the T790M mutation (HR, 4.35; P = 0.001), intermediate BRCA1 levels (HR, 8.19; P < 0.0001), and high BRCA1 levels (HR, 8.46; P < 0.0001) emerged as markers of shorter progression-free survival. Conclusions: Low BRCA1 levels neutralized the negative effect of the T790M mutation and were associated with longer progression-free survival to erlotinib. We advocate baseline assessment of the T790M mutation and BRCA1 expression to predict outcome and provide alternative individualized treatment to patients based on T790M mutations and BRCA1 expression. Clin Cancer Res; 17(5); 1–9. ©2011 AACR.

Association of EGFR L858R Mutation in Circulating Free DNA With Survival in the EURTAC Trial

IMPORTANCE The EURTAC trial demonstrated the greater efficacy of erlotinib compared with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of European patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring oncogenic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) in tumor tissue. OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of using circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from blood samples as a surrogate for tumor biopsy for determining EGFR mutation status and to correlate EGFR mutations in cfDNA with outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prespecified analysis was a secondary objective of the EURTAC trial using patients included in the EURTAC trial from 2007 to 2011 with available baseline serum or plasma samples. Patients had advanced NSCLC, oncogenic EGFR mutations in the tumor, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and were treated with erlotinib or chemotherapy. EGFR mutations were examined in cfDNA isolated from 97 baseline blood samples by our novel peptide nucleic acid-mediated 5´ nuclease real-time polymerase chain reaction (TaqMan) assay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and response to therapy were correlated with type of EGFR mutations in cfDNA. RESULTS In samples from 76 of 97 (78%) patients with usable blood samples, EGFR mutations in cfDNA were detected. Median OS was shorter in patients with the L858R mutation in cfDNA than in those with the exon 19 deletion (13.7 [95% CI, 7.1-17.7] vs 30.0 [95% CI, 19.3-37.7] months; P < .001). Univariate analyses of patients with EGFR mutations in cfDNA identified the L858R mutation in tumor tissue or in cfDNA as a marker of shorter OS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.70 [95% CI, 1.60-4.56]; P < .001) and PFS (HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.20-3.48]; P = .008). For patients with the L858R mutation in tissue, median OS was 13.7 (95% CI, 7.1-17.7) months for patients with the L858R mutation in cfDNA and 27.7 (95% CI, 16.1-46.2) months for those in whom the mutation was not detected in cfDNA (HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.09-4.52]; P = .03). In the multivariate analysis of the 76 patients with EGFR mutations in cfDNA, only erlotinib treatment remained an independent predictor of longer PFS (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23-0.74]; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The peptide nucleic acid-mediated 5´ nuclease real-time polymerase chain reaction (TaqMan) assay used in this study can be used to efficiently assess EGFR mutations in cfDNA. The L858R mutation in cfDNA may be a novel surrogate prognostic marker. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00446225.

Long-Term Survival Associated With Complete Resection After Induction Chemotherapy in Stage IIIA (N2) and IIIB (T4N0-1) Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients: The Spanish Lung Cancer Group Trial 9901

PURPOSE To assess the activity of induction chemotherapy followed by surgery in stage IIIA and selected stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Mediastinoscopy proof of either positive N2 (IIIA) or T4N0-1 (IIIB) disease was required. Induction therapy was three cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine/docetaxel, followed by surgery. RESULTS From December 1999 to March 2003, 136 patients were entered onto the study; the clinical response rate in 129 assessable patients was 56%. The overall complete resection rate was 68.9% of patients eligible for surgery (72% of stage IIIA patients and 66% of stage IIIB patients) and 48% of all assessable patients. Eight (12.9%) of 62 completely resected patients had a pathologic complete response. Seven patients (7.8%) died during the postoperative period. The median overall survival time was 15.9 months, 3-year survival rate was 36.8%, and 5-year survival rate was 21.1%, with no significant differences in survival between stage IIIA and stage IIIB patients. Median survival time was 48.5 months for 62 completely resected patients, 12.9 months for 13 incompletely resected patients, and 16.8 months for 15 nonresected patients (P = .005). Three- and 5-year survival rates were 60.1% and 41.4% for completely resected patients, 23.1% and 11.5% for incompletely resected patients, and 31.1% and 0% for nonresected patients, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, complete resection (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.35; P < .0001), clinical response (HR = 0.32; P < .0001), and age younger than 60 years (HR = 0.64; P = .027) were the most powerful prognostic factors. CONCLUSION Induction chemotherapy followed by surgery is effective in stage IIIA and in selected stage IIIB patients attaining complete resection.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor inhibitor figitumumab (CP-751,871) in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin

Introduction: This phase 1 study was conducted to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the selective insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor (IGF-IR) inhibitor figitumumab (F, CP-751,871) given in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Patients received paclitaxel 200 mg/m2, carboplatin (area under the curve of 6), and F (0.05–20 mg/kg) q3 weeks for up to six cycles. Patients with objective response or stable disease were eligible to receive additional cycles of single agent F until disease progression. Safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic endpoints were investigated. Results: Forty-two patients, including 35 with stages IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), were enrolled in eight dose escalation cohorts. A maximum tolerated dose was not identified. Severe adverse events possibly related to F included fatigue, diarrhea, hyperglycemia, gamma glutamyl transpeptidase elevation, and thrombocytopenia (one case each). F plasma exposure parameters increased with dose. Fifteen objective responses (RECIST) were reported, including two complete responses in NSCLC and ovarian carcinoma. Notably, levels of bioactive IGF-1 seemed to influence response to treatment with objective responses in patients with a high baseline-free IGF-1 to IGF binding protein-3 ratio seen only in the 10 and 20 mg/kg dosing cohorts. Conclusions: F was well tolerated in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin. Based on its favorable safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties, the maximal feasible dose of 20 mg/kg has been selected for further investigation.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms in MDR1 gen correlates with outcome in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with cisplatin plus vinorelbine

UNLABELLED New therapeutic approaches are being developed based on the findings that several genetic abnormalities underlying NSCLC could influence chemosensitivity. In this study, we assessed whether the presence of polymorphisms in ERCC1, XPD, RRM1 and MDR1 genes can affect the efficacy and the tolerability of cisplatin and vinorelbine in NSCLC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eligible patients had histological confirmed stage IV or IIIB (with malignant pleural effusion) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously untreated with chemotherapy; World Health Organization performance status (PS) 0-1. Patients received intravenous doses of vinorelbine 25 mg/m² on day 1 and 8 and cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1, every 21 days, for a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS 94 patients were included. Median age was 61 years; 84% were male; WHO performance status (PS) was 0 in 24%; and 88% of patients had stage IV disease. The median number of cycles was 6. Overall median survival was 10.92 months (95% CI 9.0-12.9). Overall median time to progression was 5.89 months (95% CI 5.2-6.6). Results of the multivariate analysis for time to progression showed that ECOG 0 (hazard ratio [HR] ECOG 1 vs. ECOG 0, 1.74; p=0.036), MDR13435CC (HR CT vs. CC, 2.01; p=0.017; HR TT vs. CC, 1.54; p=0.22), and decreasing age (HR of age, 0.97; p=0.016) were the most powerful prognostic factors significantly related to lower risk of progression. Whereas ECOG 0 was the only prognostic factor for survival (HR ECOG 1 vs. ECOG 0, 3.02; p=0.001). There was no significant association between any of the SNPs analysed and the occurrence of vinorelbine and cisplatin-related toxicity. CONCLUSION In our results, the most important prognostic factors associated with lower risk of progression were MDR1 3435 CC genotype, PS 0 and younger age.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): An open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial

Summary Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Methods The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. Findings Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). Interpretation Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. Funding Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Economic evaluation in a randomized phase III clinical trial comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin and etoposide/cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer☆

INTRODUCTION Information on the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments for cancer is being increasingly sought as pressure on health care resources increases. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) versus cisplatin/etoposide (CE) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), using resource utilization data collected in conjunction with the first randomized clinical trial comparing both combinations. METHODS Efficacy and medical care resource utilization data were collected prospectively in an open-label, multicenter, randomized, comparative, phase III trial conducted in Spain which compared gemcitabine/cisplatin and cisplatin/etoposide in 135 chemonaive patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. There were no differences between both regimens when survival was used as primary end-point, so a cost-minimization analysis was used to compare them. In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted when percentage of responses and time to progression were used as secondary end-points. RESULTS There were no differences between both regimens when survival was selected as the efficacy end-point. Despite the higher chemotherapy cost of GC when compared to CE, there were no differences in total direct costs (584523 pts for GC and 589630 pts for CE; P=NS) between both regimens. Potential savings with GC were mainly associated with a decrease in hospitalization rate. There were differences in favor of GC when response rate (40.6% for GC and 21.9% for CE; P<0.05) and time to disease progression (8.7 months for GC and 7.2 months for CE; P<0. 05) were used as clinical end-points. GC presented a favorable cost-effectiveness profile when compared to CE. CONCLUSIONS This prospective economic evaluation conducted alongside a clinical trial offers valuable preliminary information on the potential efficiency of the combination gemcitabine-cisplatin in NSCLC. Future assessments based on larger clinical trials focused on survival and naturalistic economic studies conducted in real clinical practice settings are necessary to confirm these findings.