Lionel Bosquée

Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. METHODS The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4-12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 μg lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. FINDINGS From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25.6 months (95% CI 22.5-29.2) with tecemotide versus 22.3 months (19.6-25.5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0.88, 0.75-1.03; p=0.123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30.8 months (95% CI 25.6-36.8) compared with 20.6 months (17.4-23.9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0.78, 0.64-0.95; p=0.016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19.4 months [95% CI 17.6-23.1] vs 24.6 months [18.8-33.0], respectively; adjusted HR 1.12, 0.87-1.44; p=0.38). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. FUNDING Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).

Diagnostic Performance of Soluble Mesothelin and Megakaryocyte Potentiating Factor in Mesothelioma

RATIONALE Soluble mesothelin (SM) is currently the reference serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF), which originates from the same precursor protein, is potentially more sensitive, yet lacks validation. OBJECTIVES To analyze the diagnostic performance of MPF as an MPM biomarker and compare this performance with SM. METHODS A total of 507 participants were enrolled in six cohorts: healthy control subjects (n = 101), healthy asbestos-exposed individuals (n = 89), and patients with benign asbestos-related disease (n = 123), benign respiratory disease (n = 46), lung cancer (n = 63), and MPM (n = 85). Sera were analyzed for SM and MPF levels using the Mesomark and Human MPF ELISA kit, respectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS SM and MPF levels differed significantly between patients with MPM and participants from each other cohort (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis did not reveal a significant difference between both markers in area under curve (AUC) for distinguishing MPM from all cohorts jointly (SM = 0.871, MPF = 0.849; P = 0.28). At 95% specificity, SM and MPF had a sensitivity of 64% (cutoff = 2.00 nmol/L) and 68% (cutoff = 12.38 ng/ml), respectively. Combining both markers did not improve the diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS In this prospective multicenter study, MPF is validated as a highly performant MPM biomarker. The similar AUC values of SM and MPF, together with the limited difference in sensitivity, show that both serum biomarkers have an equivalent diagnostic performance.

Soluble mesothelin, megakaryocyte potentiating factor, and osteopontin as markers of patient response and outcome in mesothelioma

Introduction: Soluble mesothelin (SM), megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF), and osteopontin (OPN) are blood biomarkers of mesothelioma. This study evaluates their use as markers of response to therapy and outcome. Methods: Sixty-two patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma were included in an observational multicenter study. Blood samples and matched computed tomography scans were collected at diagnosis and, when possible, during and after therapy. For each patient, the best overall radiological response was compared with the changes in serum SM, MPF, and plasma OPN levels across corresponding time points. Results: In five patients, blood sampling was done shortly before and after extrapleural pneumonectomy. SM and MPF levels markedly decreased after surgery, whereas OPN levels showed a median increase. Fifty-seven patients were surveilled during (and after) chemotherapy, of whom 27 (47%) had stable disease, 14 (25%) partial response, and 16 (28%) progressive disease. In patients with stable disease, SM and MPF levels did not change significantly across the corresponding time points, whereas OPN levels significantly decreased. In those with partial response, SM and MPF levels significantly decreased, whereas OPN levels showed no significant change. In patients with progressive disease, all three biomarker levels significantly increased. Patient responses correlated with a 15% change in all three biomarkers, although SM and MPF appeared more accurate than OPN. Low baseline OPN levels were independently associated with favorable progression-free survival and overall survival. Neither SM nor MPF showed prognostic value. Conclusions: SM and MPF levels were more closely associated with disease course than OPN and might prove useful in monitoring patient response in mesothelioma. Baseline OPN levels were an independent negative predictor of survival. These promising results require further validation.

The effect of clinical covariates on the diagnostic and prognostic value of soluble mesothelin and megakaryocyte potentiating factor

BACKGROUND Soluble mesothelin (SM) and megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF) are serum biomarkers of mesothelioma. This study examined the effect of clinical covariates on biomarkers levels and their diagnostic and prognostic value. METHODS Five hundred ninety-four participants were enrolled in a multicenter study, including 106 patients with mesothelioma and 488 control subjects. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify which covariates were independently associated with SM and MPF levels. The effect of these covariates on the diagnostic accuracy was evaluated with receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. In patients with mesothelioma, survival analysis was performed with Cox regression. RESULTS SM and MPF levels were independently associated with age, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and BMI in control subjects and with GFR and tumor stage in patients with mesothelioma. The diagnostic accuracy of SM and MPF was significantly affected by the distribution of these covariates in the study population. The patients with mesothelioma were best discriminated from the control subjects with either the youngest age, the highest GFR, or the largest BMI. Furthermore, the control subjects were significantly better differentiated from stage II to IV than from stage I mesothelioma. MPF, not SM, was an independent negative prognostic factor, but only if adjusted for the biomarker-associated covariates. CONCLUSIONS SM and MPF levels were affected by the same clinical covariates, which also had a significant impact on their diagnostic and prognostic value. To improve the interpretation of biomarker results, age, GFR, and BMI should be routinely recorded. Approaches to account for these covariates require further validation, as does the prognostic value of SM and MPF.

An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Phase II Study of Pazopanib in Combination with Pemetrexed in First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. Methods: Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%–1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, –30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21). Conclusion: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.

Serial Measurements of Mesothelioma Serum Biomarkers in Asbestos-Exposed Individuals: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

Introduction:Soluble mesothelin (SM) and megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF) are serum biomarkers of mesothelioma. This study aims to examine the longitudinal behavior of SM and MPF in controls to gain insight in the optimal use of these biomarkers in screening. Methods:Asbestos-exposed individuals, with no malignant disease at inclusion, were surveilled for 2 years with annual measurements of SM and MPF. Fixed thresholds were set at 2.10 nmol/L for SM and 13.10 ng/ml for MPF. Longitudinal biomarker analysis, using a random intercept model, estimated the association with age and glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and the intraclass correlation. The latter represents the proportion of total biomarker variance accounted for by the between-individual variance. Results:A total of 215 participants were included, of whom 179 and 137 provided a second sample and third sample, respectively. Two participants with normal SM and MPF levels presented afterward with mesothelioma and lung cancer, respectively. Participants with elevated biomarker levels were typically older and had a lower GFR. During follow-up, biomarker levels significantly increased. Longitudinal analysis indicated that this was in part due to aging, while changes in GFR had a less pronounced effect on serial biomarker measurements. SM and MPF had a high intraclass correlation of 0.81 and 0.78, respectively, which implies that a single biomarker measurement and fixed threshold are suboptimal in screening. Conclusions:The longitudinal behavior of SM and MPF in controls indicates that a biomarker-based screening approach can benefit from the incorporation of serial measurements and individual-specific screening rules, adjusted for age and GFR. Large-scale validation remains nevertheless mandatory to elucidate whether such an approach can improve the early detection of mesothelioma.

Safety and Immunogenicity of MAGE-A3 Cancer Immunotherapeutic with or without Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Resected Stage IB to III MAGE-A3-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic in patients with stage IB–III MAGE-A3-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were or were not undergoing standard cisplatin/vinorelbine chemotherapy. Methods: This open, prospective, multicenter, parallel-group phase I study (NCT00455572) enrolled patients with resected (cohorts 1–3) or unresectable (cohort 4) MAGE-A3-positive NSCLC. MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic (300 &mgr;g recombinant MAGE-A3 formulated with AS15) was administered (eight doses, 3 weeks apart) concurrent with (cohort 1), after (cohort 2), or without (cohort 3) standard-adjuvant chemotherapy, or after standard radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy (cohort 4). Results: Sixty-seven patients received greater than or equal to 1 dose of MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were reported for 16 out of 19 (84%), 2 out of 18 (11%), 5 out of 18 (28%), and 1 out of 12 (8%) patients in cohorts 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Many grade 3/4 AEs in cohort 1 (e.g., neutropenia) were typical of chemotherapy. Six patients, including three in cohort 1, reported study treatment–related grade 3/4 AEs (injection-site reactions or musculoskeletal/back pain, which resolved within 5 days). One patient (in cohort 4) died, but this and the other serious adverse events were not study treatment related. MAGE-A3-specific antibody responses to immunotherapy were induced in all patients evaluated in all cohorts. MAGE-A3-specific CD4+ T-cell responses to immunotherapy were detected in 4 out of 11 (36%), 4 out of 15 (27%), 2 out of 8 (25%), and 5 out of 6 (83%) evaluated patients in cohorts 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively; and CD8+ T-cell responses were only detected in four patients. Conclusion: In resected and unresectable NSCLC patients and irrespective of whether standard chemotherapy was concurrent or not, MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic is well tolerated and induces MAGE-A3-specific immune responses.

Randomised phase II study of amrubicin as single agent or in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin etoposide as first-line treatment in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer – EORTC 08062

PURPOSE The EORTC 08062 phase II randomised trial investigated the activity and safety of single agent amrubicin, cisplatin combined with amrubicin, and cisplatin combined with etoposide as first line treatment in extensive disease (ED) small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients with previously untreated ED-SCLC, WHO performance status (PS) 0-2 and measurable disease were randomised to 3 weekly cycles of either amrubicin alone 45mg/m(2) i.v. day(d) 1-3 (A), cisplatin 60mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and amrubicin 40mg/m(2) i.v. d1-3 (PA), or cisplatin 75mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and etoposide 100mg/m(2) d1, d2-3 i.v./po (PE). The primary end-point was overall response rate (ORR) as assessed by local investigators (RECIST1.0 criteria). Secondary end-points were treatment toxicity, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS The number of randomised/eligible patients who started treatment was 33/28 in A, 33/30 in PA and 33/30 in PE, respectively. Grade (G) ⩾3 haematological toxicity in A, PA and PE was neutropenia (73%, 73%, 69%); thrombocytopenia (17%, 15%, 9.4%), anaemia (10%, 15%, 3.1%) and febrile neutropenia (13%, 18%, 6%). Early deaths, including treatment related, occurred in 1, 3 and 3 patients in A, PA and PE arms, respectively. Cardiac toxicity did not differ among the 3 arms. Out of 88 eligible patients who started treatment, ORR was 61%, (90% 1-sided confidence intervals [CI] 47-100%), 77% (CI 64-100%) and 63%, (CI 50-100%) for A, PA and PE respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were active and PA met the criteria for further investigation, despite slightly higher haematological toxicity.

The Importance of Accurate Lymph Node Staging in Early and Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: An Update on Available Techniques

Medical oncologists are faced with multiple factors to consider when staging a patient with suspected or confirmed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Identifying pathological nodal (N2) disease is, however, of great importance because its presence significantly affects outcomes and potential treatment strategies. Recent data supporting the use of adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapies in these patients suggests that every reasonable effort should be made to assess the lymph node status accurately in patients with clinical early stage disease as well as in those with clinically staged N2 disease who have undergone preoperative treatments. Newer procedures such as integrated positron emission tomography computed tomography and esophageal or endobronchial endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration are minimally invasive techniques that may enhance the accuracy of mediastinal staging, traditionally devoted to mediastinoscopy. As their availability widens, they are likely to become an important part of staging and treatment paradigms. Intraoperatively, a growing body of evidence suggests that lymph node dissection can be performed safely, and should replace sampling as a more effective means of identifying unsuspected N2 disease. This paper will review the current literature on staging NSCLC with regard to the detection of nodal disease through preoperative staging of the mediastinum, the use of intraoperative lymph node sampling or dissection at the time of resection, and procedures for use in restaging patients with clinical stage IIIA N2 disease who have undergone preoperative chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy).

Prospective Evaluation of First-Line Erlotinib in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Carrying an Activating EGFR Mutation: A Multicenter Academic Phase II Study in Caucasian Patients (FIELT)

Introduction Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibition is the preferred first-line treatment of advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung that harbors EGFR activating tyrosine kinase domain mutations. Most data available pertain to Asian populations in which such mutations are more prevalent. We report on the long-term results of first-line treatment with erlotinib in Caucasian patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung that have a somatic EGFR mutation in their tumor. Methods Multicenter academic prospective phase II study with erlotinib in patients with an activating EGFR tyrosine kinase (TK) domain somatic mutation (any exon encoding the kinase domain) in the tumor and no prior treatment for their advanced disease. Results Phenotypic preselecting of 229 patients led to a high EGFR mutation detection rate of 24% of which 46 patients were included in the phase II study. With a progression free survival (PFS) of 81% at three months the study met its primary endpoint for presumed superiority over chemotherapy. With an overall median PFS of 11 months and a median overall survival (OS) of 23 months, the results compare favorably with results obtained in randomized studies using TKI in first line in EGFR mutation positive adenocarcinoma of the lung. Conclusion The present study reinforces the use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) as a first line treatment of choice for advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung carrying an activating EGFR mutation. The mutation rate in preselected Caucasian patients is higher than previously reported. Issues relevant for clinical practice are discussed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00339586