Joan H. Schiller

Gefitinib in Combination With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial—INTACT 1

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation. RESULTS A total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P =.4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P =.7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen. CONCLUSION Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.

Lung cancer in never smokers - a different disease

Although most lung cancers are a result of smoking, approximately 25% of lung cancer cases worldwide are not attributable to tobacco use, accounting for over 300,000 deaths each year. Striking differences in the epidemiological, clinical and molecular characteristics of lung cancers arising in never smokers versus smokers have been identified, suggesting that they are separate entities. This Review summarizes our current knowledge of this unique and poorly understood disease.

Topotecan versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine for the treatment of recurrent small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE Topotecan and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) were evaluated in a randomized, multicenter study of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who had relapsed at least 60 days after completion of first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received either topotecan (1.5 mg/m2) as a 30-minute infusion daily for 5 days every 21 days (n = 107) or CAV (cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45 mg/m2, and vincristine 2 mg) infused on day 1 every 21 days (n = 104). Eligibility included the following: bidimensionally measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than or equal to 2, and adequate marrow, liver, and renal function. Response was confirmed by blinded independent radiologic review. RESULTS Response rate was 26 of 107 patients (24.3%) treated with topotecan and 19 of 104 patients (18.3%) treated with CAV (P = .285). Median times to progression were 13.3 weeks (topotecan) and 12.3 weeks (CAV) (P = .552). Median survival was 25.0 weeks for topotecan and 24.7 weeks for CAV (P = .795). The proportion of patients who experienced symptom improvement was greater in the topotecan group than in the CAV group for four of eight symptoms evaluated, including dyspnea, anorexia, hoarseness, and fatigue, as well as interference with daily activity (P< or =.043). Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 37.8% of topotecan courses versus 51.4% of CAV courses (P<.001). Grade 4 thrombocytopenia and grade 3/4 anemia occurred more frequently with topotecan, occurring in 9.8% and 17.7% of topotecan courses versus 1.4% and 7.2% of CAV courses, respectively (P<.001 for both). Nonhematologic toxicities were generally grade 1 to 2 for both regimens. CONCLUSION Topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent SCLC and resulted in improved control of several symptoms.

Using multiplexed assays of oncogenic drivers in lung cancers to select targeted drugs.

IMPORTANCE Targeting oncogenic drivers (genomic alterations critical to cancer development and maintenance) has transformed the care of patients with lung adenocarcinomas. The Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium was formed to perform multiplexed assays testing adenocarcinomas of the lung for drivers in 10 genes to enable clinicians to select targeted treatments and enroll patients into clinical trials. OBJECTIVES To determine the frequency of oncogenic drivers in patients with lung adenocarcinomas and to use the data to select treatments targeting the identified driver(s) and measure survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From 2009 through 2012, 14 sites in the United States enrolled patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinomas and a performance status of 0 through 2 and tested their tumors for 10 drivers. Information was collected on patients, therapies, and survival. INTERVENTIONS Tumors were tested for 10 oncogenic drivers, and results were used to select matched targeted therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Determination of the frequency of oncogenic drivers, the proportion of patients treated with genotype-directed therapy, and survival. RESULTS From 2009 through 2012, tumors from 1007 patients were tested for at least 1 gene and 733 for 10 genes (patients with full genotyping). An oncogenic driver was found in 466 of 733 patients (64%). Among these 733 tumors, 182 tumors (25%) had the KRAS driver; sensitizing EGFR, 122 (17%); ALK rearrangements, 57 (8%); other EGFR, 29 (4%); 2 or more genes, 24 (3%); ERBB2 (formerly HER2), 19 (3%); BRAF, 16 (2%); PIK3CA, 6 (<1%); MET amplification, 5 (<1%); NRAS, 5 (<1%); MEK1, 1 (<1%); AKT1, 0. Results were used to select a targeted therapy or trial in 275 of 1007 patients (28%). The median survival was 3.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.96-7.70) for the 260 patients with an oncogenic driver and genotype-directed therapy compared with 2.4 years (IQR, 0.88-6.20) for the 318 patients with any oncogenic driver(s) who did not receive genotype-directed therapy (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.9], P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Actionable drivers were detected in 64% of lung adenocarcinomas. Multiplexed testing aided physicians in selecting therapies. Although individuals with drivers receiving a matched targeted agent lived longer, randomized trials are required to determine if targeting therapy based on oncogenic drivers improves survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01014286.

Phase III Study of Immediate Compared With Delayed Docetaxel After Front-Line Therapy With Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) is active as front-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For patients without progression, timing of second-line chemotherapy for optimum clinical benefit remains uncertain. This phase III, randomized trial assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel administered either immediately after GC or at disease progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS The chemotherapy-naïve patients enrolled had either stage IIIB NSCLC with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC. Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) was administered on days 1 and 8 followed by carboplatin (area under the curve = 5) on day 1. After four 21-day cycles, patients who did not have progression were randomly assigned either to an immediate docetaxel group (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days, with maximum of six cycles) or to a delayed docetaxel group. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) measured from random assignment. Additional analyses included tumor response, toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS Enrollment totaled 566 patients; 398 patients completed GC; 309 patients were randomly assigned equally to the two docetaxel treatment groups. Toxicity profiles were generally comparable for the docetaxel groups. Median PFS for immediate docetaxel (5.7 months) was significantly greater (P = .0001) than for delayed docetaxel (2.7 months). Median OS for immediate docetaxel (12.3 months) was greater than for delayed docetaxel (9.7 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .0853). QOL results were not statistically different (P = .76) between docetaxel groups. CONCLUSION We observed a statistically significant improvement in PFS and a nonstatistically significant increase in OS when docetaxel was administered immediately after front-line GC, without increasing toxicity or decreasing QOL.

Randomized Phase II Study of Erlotinib Plus Tivantinib Versus Erlotinib Plus Placebo in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE c-MET (MET) receptor activation is associated with poor prognosis and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) resistance in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This global, randomized phase II trial examined erlotinib plus tivantinib (ARQ 197; ArQule, Woburn, MA), a novel MET inhibitor. METHODS Previously treated patients with EGFR TKI-naive advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily) or erlotinib plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). At the time of progression, cross-over from EP to erlotinib plus tivantinib (ET) was permitted. Archival tumor tissue specimens were required. RESULTS One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to ET (n = 84) and to EP (n = 83). Median PFS was 3.8 months for ET and 2.3 months for EP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.16; P = .24). Exploratory analysis revealed that the small cohort with KRAS mutations achieved a PFS HR of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.70; interaction P = .006). Objective responses were seen in 10% of patients on ET, 7% of patients on EP, and in two patients who crossed over from EP to ET, including one with EGFR mutation and MET gene copy number greater than 5. There were no significant differences in adverse events between study arms. CONCLUSION The combination of the MET inhibitor tivantinib and erlotinib is well-tolerated. Although the study did not meet its primary end point, evidence of activity was demonstrated, especially among patients with KRAS mutations. Additional study of tivantinib and erlotinib in patients with NSCLC is planned.

Outcomes for Elderly, Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated With Bevacizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel: Analysis of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial 4599

PURPOSE Fit elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from platinum-based, two-drug chemotherapy. Bevacizumab (B) in combination with carboplatin (C) and paclitaxel (P) improves survival for advanced, nonsquamous NSCLC, as evidenced in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 4599. We conducted a subset analysis of ECOG 4599 to determine the outcome for elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS ECOG 4599 randomly assigned patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC to PC or to PCB. We analyzed outcome in patients who were at least 70 years of age at the time of study entry. Patient characteristics, efficacy, and toxicity data were compared between PC and PCB for the elderly. Outcomes for elderly and younger patients (< 70 years) treated with PCB were also compared. RESULTS Among elderly patients (n = 224; 26%), there was a trend towards higher response rate (29% v 17%; P = .067) and progression-free survival (5.9 v 4.9 months; P = .063) with PCB compared with PC, although overall survival (PCB = 11.3 months; PC = 12.1 months; P = .4) was similar. Grade 3 to 5 toxicities occurred in 87% of elderly patients with PCB versus 61% with PC (P < .001), with seven treatment-related deaths in the PCB arm compared with two with PC. Elderly patients had higher incidence of grade 3 to 5 neutropenia, bleeding, and proteinuria with PCB compared with younger patients. CONCLUSION In elderly NSCLC patients, PCB was associated with a higher degree of toxicity, but no obvious improvement in survival compared with PC. Data from this unplanned, retrospective analysis justify prospective evaluation of the therapeutic index of PCB regimen in elderly patients.

Cell Adhesion Molecules, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, and Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor in Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab—an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study

Background: E4599 was a phase II/phase III trial, in which 878 patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer were randomized to carboplatin + paclitaxel (PC arm) or PC + bevacizumab (BPC arm). Survival and progression-free survival were superior on the BPC arm. The rationale for markers used in this correlative study was based on elevated vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM) and E-selectin in a variety of malignances and changes in response to endothelial cell apoptosis. Materials and Methods: Prospective correlates included measurements of pretreatment plasma VEGF, as well as pretreatment and week 7, bFGF, ICAM, and E-selectin. Low and high levels were defined as less than or equal to or more than the median. Results: E-selectin (P < 0.0001) showed a decrease and bFGF showed an increase (P = 0.004) from baseline at week 7, which were similar in both arms. Baseline ICAM showed significant associations with response and survival in both groups. Patients with low baseline ICAM had a higher response rate (32% versus 14%; P = 0.02), better overall survival (P = 0.00005), and better 1-year survival (65% versus 25%) than those with high ICAM, respectively, regardless of treatment arm. Patients with high VEGF levels were more likely to respond to BPC compared with PC, but this was not predictive of survival. The results also suggest a benefit from bevacizumab for patients with low baseline ICAM levels (53% reduction in the progression-free survival hazard rate). Conclusions: In this study, baseline ICAM levels were prognostic for survival and predictive of response to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. VEGF levels were predictive of response to bevacizumab but not survival.

Systemic Therapy for Stage IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on systemic therapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS An Update Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology NSCLC Expert Panel based recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from January 2007 to February 2014. RESULTS This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS There is no cure for patients with stage IV NSCLC. For patients with performance status (PS) 0 to 1 (and appropriate patient cases with PS 2) and without an EGFR-sensitizing mutation or ALK gene rearrangement, combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care. Recommendations for patients in the first-line setting include platinum-doublet therapy for those with PS 0 to 1 (bevacizumab may be added to carboplatin plus paclitaxel if no contraindications); combination or single-agent chemotherapy or palliative care alone for those with PS 2; afatinib, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with sensitizing EGFR mutations; crizotinib for those with ALK or ROS1 gene rearrangement; and following first-line recommendations or using platinum plus etoposide for those with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma. Maintenance therapy includes pemetrexed continuation for patients with stable disease or response to first-line pemetrexed-containing regimens, alternative chemotherapy, or a chemotherapy break. In the second-line setting, recommendations include docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed for patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma; docetaxel, erlotinib, or gefitinib for those with squamous cell carcinoma; and chemotherapy or ceritinib for those with ALK rearrangement who experience progression after crizotinib. In the third-line setting, for patients who have not received erlotinib or gefitinib, treatment with erlotinib is recommended. There are insufficient data to recommend routine third-line cytotoxic therapy. Decisions regarding systemic therapy should not be made based on age alone. Additional information can be found at http://www.asco.org/guidelines/nsclc and http://www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Topotecan Versus Observation After Cisplatin Plus Etoposide in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: E7593—A Phase III Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy of topotecan in combination with standard chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had measurable or assessable disease and an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2; stable brain metastases were allowed. All patients received four cycles of cisplatin and etoposide every 3 weeks (step 1; PE). Patients with stable or responding disease were then randomized to observation or four cycles of topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2)/d for 5 days, every 3 weeks; step 2). A total of 402 eligible patients were registered to step 1, and 223 eligible patients were registered to step 2 (observation, n = 111; topotecan, n = 112). RESULTS Complete and partial response rates to induction PE were 3% and 32%, respectively. A 7% response rate was observed with topotecan (complete response, 2%; partial response, 5%). The median survival time for all 402 eligible patients was 9.6 months. Progression-free survival (PFS) from date of randomization on step 2 was significantly better with topotecan compared with observation (3.6 months v 2.3 months; P <.001). However, overall survival from date of randomization on step 2 was not significantly different between the observation and topotecan arms (8.9 months v 9.3 months; P =.43). Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 50% and 3%, respectively, of PE patients in step 1 and 60% and 13% of topotecan patients in step 2. Grade 4/5 infection was observed in 4.6% of PE patients and 1.8% of topotecan patients. Grade 3/4 anemia developed in 22% of patients who received topotecan. No difference in quality of life between topotecan and observation was observed at any assessment time or for any of the subscale scores. CONCLUSION Four cycles of PE induction therapy followed by four cycles of topotecan improved PFS but failed to improve overall survival or quality of life in extensive-stage SCLC. Four cycles of standard PE remains an appropriate first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC patients with good performance status.