Maciej Krzakowski

Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial

BACKGROUND Use of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has the potential to increase survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We therefore compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS In a multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (>or=18 years) with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chemotherapy plus cetuximab or just chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles. Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m(2) over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity had occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS Between October, 2004, and January, 2006, 1125 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n=557) or chemotherapy alone (n=568). Patients given chemotherapy plus cetuximab survived longer than those in the chemotherapy-alone group (median 11.3 months vs 10.1 months; hazard ratio for death 0.871 [95% CI 0.762-0.996]; p=0.044). The main cetuximab-related adverse event was acne-like rash (57 [10%] of 548, grade 3). INTERPRETATION Addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy represents a new treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND Several studies have shown the efficacy, tolerability, and ease of administration of pemetrexed-an antifolate antineoplastic agent-in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We assessed pemetrexed as maintenance therapy in patients with this disease. METHODS This randomised double-blind study was undertaken in 83 centres in 20 countries. 663 patients with stage IIIB or IV disease who had not progressed on four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2), day 1) plus best supportive care (n=441) or placebo plus best supportive care (n=222) in 21-day cycles until disease progression. Treatment was randomised with the Simon and Pocock minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment. All patients received vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival and the secondary endpoint of overall survival were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00102804. FINDINGS All randomly assigned participants were analysed. Pemetrexed significantly improved progression-free survival (4.3 months [95% CI 4.1-4.7] vs 2.6 months [1.7-2.8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.42-0.61, p<0.0001) and overall survival (13.4 months [11.9-15.9] vs 10.6 months [8.7-12.0]; HR 0.79, 0.65-0.95, p=0.012) compared with placebo. Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related toxic effects were higher in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group (21 [5%] vs three [1%]). Drug-related grade three or higher toxic effects were higher with pemetrexed than with placebo (70 [16%] vs nine [4%]; p<0.0001), specifically fatigue (22 [5%] vs one [1%], p=0.001) and neutropenia (13 [3%] vs 0, p=0.006). No pemetrexed-related deaths occurred. Relatively fewer patients in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group received systemic post-discontinuation therapy (227 [51%] vs 149 [67%]; p=0.0001). INTERPRETATION Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed is well tolerated and offers improved progression-free and overall survival compared with placebo in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING Eli Lilly.

Zoledronic Acid Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Skeletal Metastases in Patients With Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors: A Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial—The Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group

PURPOSE To assess the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumors other than breast or prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive zoledronic acid (4 or 8 mg) or placebo every 3 weeks for 9 months, with concomitant antineoplastic therapy. The 8-mg dose was reduced to 4 mg (8/4-mg group). The primary efficacy analysis was proportion of patients with at least one skeletal-related event (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation therapy to bone, and surgery to bone. Secondary analyses (time to first SRE, skeletal morbidity rate, and multiple event analysis) counted hypercalcemia as an SRE. RESULTS Among 773 patients with bone metastases from lung cancer or other solid tumors, the proportion with an SRE was reduced in both zoledronic acid groups compared with the placebo group (38% for 4 mg and 35% for 8/4 mg zoledronic acid v 44% for the placebo group; P =.127 and P =.023 for 4-mg and 8/4-mg groups, respectively). Additionally, 4 mg zoledronic acid significantly increased time to first event (median, 230 v 163 days for placebo; P =.023), an important end point in this poor-prognosis population, and significantly reduced the risk of developing skeletal events by multiple event analysis (hazard ratio = 0.732; P =.017). Zoledronic acid was well tolerated; the most common adverse events in all treatment groups included bone pain, nausea, anemia, and vomiting. CONCLUSION Zoledronic acid (4 mg infused over 15 minutes) is the first bisphosphonate to reduce skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors other than breast and prostate cancer.

EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study.

BACKGROUND Findings from the phase 3 First-Line ErbituX in lung cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·871, 95% CI 0·762-0·996; p=0·044) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To define patients benefiting most from cetuximab, we studied the association of tumour EGFR expression level with clinical outcome in FLEX study patients. METHODS We used prospectively collected tumour EGFR expression data to generate an immunohistochemistry score for FLEX study patients on a continuous scale of 0-300. We used response data to select an outcome-based discriminatory threshold immunohistochemistry score for EGFR expression of 200. Treatment outcome was analysed in patients with low (immunohistochemistry score <200) and high (≥200) tumour EGFR expression. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. We analysed patients from the FLEX intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 1121 of 1125 (99·6%) patients from the FLEX study ITT population. High EGFR expression was scored for 345 (31%) evaluable patients and low for 776 (69%) patients. For patients in the high EGFR expression group, overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 12·0 months [95% CI 10·2-15·2] vs 9·6 months [7·6-10·6]; HR 0·73, 0·58-0·93; p=0·011), with no meaningful increase in side-effects. We recorded no corresponding survival benefit for patients in the low EGFR expression group (median 9·8 months [8·9-12·2] vs 10·3 months [9·2-11·5]; HR 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·88). A treatment interaction test assessing the difference in the HRs for overall survival between the EGFR expression groups suggested a predictive value for EGFR expression (p=0·044). INTERPRETATION High EGFR expression is a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Assessment of EGFR expression could offer a personalised treatment approach in this setting. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Docetaxel plus nintedanib versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (LUME-Lung 1): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Patients from 211 centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2-21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00805194. FINDINGS Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8-11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months [95% CI 2·9-3·9] vs 2·7 months [2·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·68-0·92], p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8-36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months [95% CI 8·5-12·6] vs 7·9 months [6·7-9·1]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·92], p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months [95% CI 10·6-15·1] vs 10·3 months [95% CI 8·6-12·2]; HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·70-0·99], p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months [95% CI 8·8-11·2] vs 9·1 months [8·4-10·4]; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83-1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 [6·6%] of 652 vs 17 [2·6%] of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 [7·8%] vs six [0·9%]), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 [3·4%] vs three [0·5%]). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three). INTERPRETATION Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

Phase III Study of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone or With Sorafenib in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Nine hundred twenty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive up to six 21-day cycles of carboplatin area under the curve 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) (CP) on day 1, followed by either sorafenib 400 mg twice a day (n = 464, arm A) or placebo (n = 462, arm B) on days 2 to 19. The maintenance phase after CP consisted of sorafenib 400 mg or placebo twice a day. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival and tumor response. RESULTS Overall demographics were balanced between arms; 223 patients (24%) had squamous cell histology. On the basis of a planned interim analysis, median OS was 10.7 months in arm A and 10.6 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.41; P = .915). The study was terminated after the interim analysis concluded that the study was highly unlikely to meet its primary end point. A prespecified exploratory analysis revealed that patients with squamous cell histology had greater mortality in arm A than in arm B (HR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.81). Main grade 3 or 4 sorafenib-related toxicities included rash (8.4%), hand-foot skin reaction (7.8%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSION No clinical benefit was observed from adding sorafenib to CP chemotherapy as first-line treatment for NSCLC.

Docetaxel and Doxorubicin Compared With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: Results of a Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE This randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared doxorubicin and docetaxel (AT) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) as first-line chemotherapy (CT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 429) were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (n = 214) or doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) (n = 215) on day 1, every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. RESULTS Time to progression (TTP; primary end point) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were significantly longer with AT than AC (median TTP, 37.3 v 31.9 weeks; log-rank P =.014; median TTF, 25.6 v 23.7 weeks; log-rank P =.048). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly greater for patients taking AT (59%, with 10% complete response [CR], 49% partial response [PR]) than for those taking AC (47%, with 7% CR, 39% PR) (P =.009). The ORR was also higher with AT in patients with visceral involvement (58% v 41%; liver, 62% v 42%; lung, 58% v 35%), three or more organs involved (59% v 40%), or prior adjuvant CT (53% v 41%). Overall survival (OS) was comparable in both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was frequent in both groups, although febrile neutropenia and infections were more frequent for patients taking AT (respectively, 33% v 10%, P <.001; 8% v 2%, P =.01). Severe nonhematologic toxicity was infrequent in both groups, including grade 3/4 cardiac events (AT, 3%; AC, 4%). CONCLUSION AT significantly improves TTP and ORR compared with AC in patients with MBC, but there is no difference in OS. AT represents a valid option for the treatment of MBC.

A multicenter, randomized, phase III study of docetaxel plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or non-resectable localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

This was an open-label randomized Phase III study of 207 patients with either unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with docetaxel plus best supportive care (BSC) or best supportive care alone. Patients in the chemotherapy arm of the study received docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) as a 1 h intravenous infusion every 21 days until they showed evidence of progressive disease, or estimated maximum benefit obtained or unacceptable side effects. Patients who received docetaxel were pretreated with oral dexamethasone. Patients in the BSC arm should not receive chemotherapy or anticancer therapy except for palliative radiotherapy. Overall survival obtained in the docetaxel arm was significantly longer than in the BSC arm (P=0.026). Two-year survival in the docetaxel arm was 12%, whereas none of the BSC patients survived after 20 months. The response rate was 13.1% (95% CI, 7.5-18.8%). There was a significantly longer time to progression in the docetaxel versus the BSC arm (P<0.001), and statistically significant improvement of clinical symptoms with docetaxel compared to BSC. The quality-of-life descriptors were in favor of docetaxel, and the difference was significant for pain, dyspnea and emotional functioning. The safety profile of docetaxel for this study was similar to that already reported in this patient population.

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.

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).