Gilberto de Castro

Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Despite recent advances in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, there remains a need for effective treatments for progressive disease. We assessed the efficacy of pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 study at 202 academic medical centres in 24 countries. Patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression on at least 1% of tumour cells were randomly assigned (1:1:1) in blocks of six per stratum with an interactive voice-response system to receive pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival both in the total population and in patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of tumour cells. We used a threshold for significance of p<0.00825 (one-sided) for the analysis of overall survival and a threshold of p<0.001 for progression-free survival. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01905657. FINDINGS Between Aug 28, 2013, and Feb 27, 2015, we enrolled 1034 patients: 345 allocated to pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 346 allocated to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 343 allocated to docetaxel. By Sept 30, 2015, 521 patients had died. In the total population, median overall survival was 10.4 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 12.7 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 8.5 months with docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p=0.0008) and for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0.61, 0.49-0.75; p<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg, 4.0 months with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg, and 4.0 months with docetaxel, with no significant difference for pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg versus docetaxel (0.88, 0.74-1.05; p=0.07) or for pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg versus docetaxel (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94; p=0.004). Among patients with at least 50% of tumour cells expressing PD-L1, overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 14.9 months vs 8.2 months; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77; p=0.0002) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (17.3 months vs 8.2 months; 0.50, 0.36-0.70; p<0.0001). Likewise, for this patient population, progression-free survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg than with docetaxel (median 5.0 months vs 4.1 months; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.78; p=0.0001) and with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg than with docetaxel (5.2 months vs 4.1 months; 0.59, 0.45-0.78; p<0.0001). Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were less common with pembrolizumab than with docetaxel (43 [13%] of 339 patients given 2 mg/kg, 55 [16%] of 343 given 10 mg/kg, and 109 [35%] of 309 given docetaxel). INTERPRETATION Pembrolizumab prolongs overall survival and has a favourable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. These data establish pembrolizumab as a new treatment option for this population and validate the use of PD-L1 selection. FUNDING Merck & Co.

Review: Side Effects of Approved Molecular Targeted Therapies in Solid Cancers

Major advances have been achieved in the field of biologically based therapies for cancer in the last few years, and some of the recently approved molecular-targeted therapies are now being used in daily clinical practice. These molecular targets are also expressed in normal cells, which explains the different grades of toxicity, resulting from the disruption of normal cellular function. In general, targeted molecular therapies have good toxicity profiles, but some patients are exquisitely sensitive to these drugs and can develop particular and severe toxicities. In this article, we review the toxicity and safety of various small molecules and monoclonal antibodies used in solid tumors, with discussion of the pathophysiology, correlation with response, and strategies for prevention and management.

Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. METHODS In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m(2) per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345682. FINDINGS Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5-2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65-0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. INTERPRETATION Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND The efficacy of ceritinib in patients with untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study in untreated patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-rearranged non-squamous NSCLC was done in 134 centres across 28 countries. Eligible patients were assigned via interactive response technology to oral ceritinib 750 mg/day or platinum-based chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5-6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed); randomisation was stratified by World Health Organization performance status (0 vs 1-2), previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and presence of brain metastases as per investigators assessment at screening. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, based on all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set). Efficacy analyses were done based on the full analysis set. All safety analyses were done based on the safety set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828099. FINDINGS Between Aug 19, 2013, and May 11, 2015, 376 patients were randomly assigned to ceritinib (n=189) or chemotherapy (n=187). Median progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16·6 months (95% CI 12·6-27·2) in the ceritinib group and 8·1 months (5·8-11·1) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·42-0·73]; p<0·00001). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (in 160 [85%] of 189 patients), nausea (130 [69%]), vomiting (125 [66%]), and an increase in alanine aminotransferase (114 [60%]) in the ceritinib group and nausea (in 97 [55%] of 175 patients), vomiting (63 [36%]), and anaemia (62 [35%]) in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION First-line ceritinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

11 years' follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial

BACKGROUND Clinical trials have shown that trastuzumab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody against HER2 receptor, significantly improves overall survival and disease-free survival in women with HER2-positive early breast cancer, but long-term follow-up data are needed. We report the results of comparing observation with two durations of trastuzumab treatment at a median follow-up of 11 years, for patients enrolled in the HERA (HERceptin Adjuvant) trial. METHODS HERA (BIG 1-01) is an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised trial of 5102 women with HER2-positive early breast cancer, who were enrolled from hospitals in 39 countries between Dec 7, 2001, and June 20, 2005. After completion of all primary therapy (including, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy as indicated), patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive trastuzumab for 1 year (once at 8 mg/kg of bodyweight intravenously, then 6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) or for 2 years (with the same dose schedule), or to the observation group. Primary endpoint is disease-free survival, and analyses are in the intention-to-treat population. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox models, and survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison of 2 years versus 1 year of trastuzumab is based on 366-day landmark analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00045032). FINDINGS Of the 5102 women randomly assigned in the HERA trial, three patients had no evidence of having provided written informed consent to participate. We followed up the intention-to-treat population of 5099 patients (1697 in observation, 1702 in 1-year trastuzumab, and 1700 in 2-years trastuzumab groups). After a median follow-up of 11 years (IQR 10·09-11·53), random assignment to 1 year of trastuzumab significantly reduced the risk of a disease-free survival event (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·86) and death (0·74, 0·64-0·86) compared with observation. 2 years of adjuvant trastuzumab did not improve disease free-survival outcomes compared with 1 year of this drug (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·17). Estimates of 10-year disease-free survival were 63% for observation, 69% for 1 year of trastuzumab, and 69% for 2 years of trastuzumab. 884 (52%) patients assigned to the observation group selectively crossed over to receive trastuzumab. Cardiac toxicity remained low in all groups and occurred mostly during the treatment phase. The incidence of secondary cardiac endpoints was 122 (7·3%) in the 2-years trastuzumab group, 74 (4·4%) in the 1-year trastuzumab group, and 15 (0·9%) in the observation group. INTERPRETATION 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab after chemotherapy for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer significantly improves long-term disease-free survival, compared with observation. 2 years of trastuzumab had no additional benefit. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche).

ORAL MUCOSITIS PREVENTION BY LOW-LEVEL LASER THERAPY IN HEAD-AND-NECK CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING CONCURRENT CHEMORADIOTHERAPY: A PHASE III RANDOMIZED STUDY

PURPOSE Oral mucositis is a major complication of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in head-and-neck cancer patients. Low-level laser (LLL) therapy is a promising preventive therapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of LLL therapy to decrease severe oral mucositis and its effect on RT interruptions. METHODS AND MATERIALS In the present randomized, double-blind, Phase III study, patients received either gallium-aluminum-arsenide LLL therapy 2.5 J/cm(2) or placebo laser, before each radiation fraction. Eligible patients had to have been diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, or metastases to the neck with an unknown primary site. They were treated with adjuvant or definitive CRT, consisting of conventional RT 60-70 Gy (range, 1.8-2.0 Gy/d, 5 times/wk) and concurrent cisplatin. The primary endpoints were the oral mucositis severity in Weeks 2, 4, and 6 and the number of RT interruptions because of mucositis. The secondary endpoints included patient-reported pain scores. To detect a decrease in the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis from 80% to 50%, we planned to enroll 74 patients. RESULTS A total of 75 patients were included, and 37 patients received preventive LLL therapy. The mean delivered radiation dose was greater in the patients treated with LLL (69.4 vs. 67.9 Gy, p = .03). During CRT, the number of patients diagnosed with Grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis treated with LLL vs. placebo was 4 vs. 5 (Week 2, p = 1.0), 4 vs. 12 (Week 4, p = .08), and 8 vs. 9 (Week 6, p = 1.0), respectively. More of the patients treated with placebo had RT interruptions because of mucositis (6 vs. 0, p = .02). No difference was detected between the treatment arms in the incidence of severe pain. CONCLUSIONS LLL therapy was not effective in reducing severe oral mucositis, although a marginal benefit could not be excluded. It reduced RT interruptions in these head-and-neck cancer patients, which might translate into improved CRT efficacy.

Evaluation of the prognostic significance of serum galectin-3 in American Joint Committee on Cancer stage Iii and stage Iv melanoma patients

Galectin-3 (Gal-3) is a member of the &bgr;-galactoside-binding lectins family and has been implicated in angiogenesis, tumor invasion, and metastatic process in vitro and in vivo. As we showed recently that advanced melanoma patients presented high serum level of Gal-3, we investigated the association of this protein with the outcome of melanoma patients. Whether this protein could be a biomarker has not been assessed, and we compared the prognostic value of serum Gal-3 in multivariate analysis with lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein and S100B. We conclude that Gal-3 could be of prognostic value in melanoma patients; more precisely, this protein has a strong independent prognostic signification with a cut-off value of 10 ng/ml. After these data, we believe that serum Gal-3 measurement can have an important role in the follow-up and management of advanced American Joint Commission on Cancer stage III and stage IV melanoma patients. Further studies will uncover whether Gal-3 will be able to open new therapeutic perspectives.

Meta-Analysis of First-Line Therapies in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Harboring EGFR-Activating Mutations

Introduction: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib have been compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapies for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor–activating mutations. This meta-analysis compares gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and chemotherapy. Methods: Literature search was performed using relevant keywords. Direct and indirect meta-estimates were generated using log-linear mixed-effects models, with random effects for study. Study-to-study heterogeneity was summarized using I2 statistics and predictive intervals (PIs). Results: Literature search yielded eight randomized phase 3 clinical trials comparing gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer during the last 5 years. Hazard ratio meta-estimates for progression-free survival were for gefitinib versus chemotherapy 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31–0.63; 95% PI, 0.22–0.88), erlotinib versus chemotherapy 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15–0.42; 95% PI, 0.11–0.55), afatinib versus chemotherapy 0.44 (95% CI, 0.26–0.75; 95% PI, 0.20–0.98), erlotinib versus gefitinib 0.57 (95% CI, 0.30–1.08; 95% PI, 0.24–1.36), afatinib versus gefitinib 1.01 (95% CI, 0.53–1.92; 95% PI, 0.41–2.42), and erlotinib versus afatinib 0.56 (95% CI, 0.27–1.18; 95% PI, 0.22–1.46). Results for overall response rate and disease control rate were similar. There was no evidence that gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy. Conclusion: Gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib out-performed chemotherapy in terms of progression-free survival, overall response rate, and disease control rate. Differences among gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib were not statistically significant.

ERCC1 protein, mRNA expression and T19007C polymorphism as prognostic markers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with surgery and adjuvant cisplatin-based chemoradiation

Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemoradiation improves survival in HNSCC patients presenting with risk features. ERCC1 (excision repair cross-complementation group 1) is associated with resistance to chemo- and radiation therapy and may have a prognostic value in HNSCC patients. Here we studied ERCC1 expression and the polymorphism T19007C as prognostic markers in these patients. This is a retrospective and translational analysis, where ERCC1 protein expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry, using an H-score, and mRNA expression was determined by RT-PCR. T19007C genotypes were detected by PCR-RFLP carried out using DNA template extracted from normal lymph nodes. A high H-score was seen in 32 patients (54%), who presented better 5-year overall survival (5-y OS: 50% vs. 18%, HR 0.43, p=0.026). Fifteen out of 45 patients (33%), with high mRNA expression, presented better 5-year overall survival (OS) (86% vs. 30%, HR 0.26, p=0.052). No OS difference was detected among T19007C genotypes. High H-score and mRNA expression remained significant as favorable prognostic factors in a multivariate analysis. Collectively, our results suggest that high ERCC1 expression seems to be associated with better OS rates in HNSCC patients submitted to adjuvant cisplatin-based chemoradiation.

Management of head and neck cancer in elderly patients.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) represents a heterogeneous group of tumours requiring multimodality approaches. It is debatable whether HNC treatment in geriatric patients should be different to that delivered for younger patients. Furthermore, the risk of death seems to be higher in HNC patients with higher co-morbidity status. Despite the fact that there is no significant difference in outcome in younger versus older patients, older HNC patients are more likely to receive nonstandard, less aggressive therapies than younger patients. Age alone should not be the basis for selecting treatment options in older HNC patients. A thorough pretreatment evaluation of co-morbidities should always be performed, and radical surgical options should not be excluded in older HNC patients treated with curative intent, as postoperative complications occur no more frequently in older patients than in younger patients. Locoregional control and disease-free survival in older patients treated with radiation therapy (either with curative intent or in the palliative setting) are comparable to the results seen in younger HNC patients, with the same acute toxicity profile. In patients receiving systemic therapies, special attention must be given to modification of chemotherapy dosages according to renal and hepatic function. Molecular-targeted therapies appear to be very useful in such patients because of their favourable tolerability. In conclusion, once all physiological and biological risk factors have been addressed, a large proportion of geriatric patients can and should be offered the same HNC treatment as is offered to younger patients.