Mark A. Socinski

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial

BACKGROUND Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388. FINDINGS 1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common. INTERPRETATION INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Effect of Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor on Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression

An increase in the dose of chemotherapy enhances the response of many experimental and clinical cancers, but the extent of dose escalation is often limited by myelosuppression. In preliminary trials, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhGM-CSF) has augmented leukocyte numbers and function, but the optimal dose is not established. We treated 16 adults who had inoperable or metastatic sarcomas with escalating doses of rhGM-CSF before and immediately after a first cycle of chemotherapy (cycle 1) to assess hematologic response and toxicity. A second cycle of chemotherapy (cycle 2) was given without rhGM-CSF. RhGM-CSF was tolerated well at doses of 4 to 32 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. At 64 micrograms per kilogram per day, edema and thrombi around a central venous catheter developed in two of four patients. Leukocyte and granulocyte counts increased significantly during the rhGM-CSF infusion. Neutropenia after cycle 1 was significantly less severe and shorter in duration than after cycle 2 (P less than 0.01). Mean total leukocyte and platelet nadirs were 1.0 and 101 x 10(9) per liter for cycle 1 and 0.45 and 44 x 10(9) per liter for cycle 2 (P less than 0.01), and the median intervals from day 1 of chemotherapy to neutrophil recovery (greater than 0.500 x 10(9) per liter) were 15 and 19 days, respectively (P less than 0.01). The duration of neutropenia was 3.5 days with cycle 1 and 7.4 days with cycle 2 (P less than 0.01). We conclude that rhGM-CSF is tolerated well at doses up to 32 micrograms per kilogram per day and is biologically active in leukopenic patients. It merits further evaluation for the prevention of morbidity from chemotherapy.

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.

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Phase III Trial Comparing a Defined Duration of Therapy Versus Continuous Therapy Followed by Second-Line Therapy in Advanced-Stage IIIB/IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE To compare four cycles of therapy versus continuous therapy to determine the optimal duration of chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized to arm A (four cycles of carboplatin at an area under the curve of 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) every 21 days) or arm B (continuous treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel until progression). At progression, all patients on both arms were to receive second-line weekly paclitaxel at 80 mg/m(2)/wk. The primary end points were survival and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS Two hundred thirty patients were randomized. Fifty-seven percent of arm A patients completed four courses of therapy. In the 116 arm B patients, the median number of cycles delivered was four (range, zero to 19 cycles). Forty-two percent received five or more cycles; 18% received eight or more cycles. Overall response rates were 22% and 24% for arms A and B, respectively (P =.80). Median survival time and 1-year survival rates were 6.6 months and 28% for arm A and 8.5 months and 34% for arm B, respectively (log-rank P =.63). Rates of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were similar between the two arms, except for neuropathy. The rate of grade 2 to 4 neuropathy increased from 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6% to 26.2%) at cycle 4 to 43% (95% CI, 28.6% to 57.4%) at cycle 8. There were no differences in QOL. Only 45% of patients received second-line therapy (42% in arm A v 47% in arm B, P =.42). CONCLUSION This study shows no overall benefit in survival, response rates, or QOL to continuing treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel beyond four cycles in advanced NSCLC.

Weekly nab-Paclitaxel in Combination With Carboplatin Versus Solvent-Based Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin as First-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Final Results of a Phase III Trial

PURPOSE This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus carboplatin with solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-paclitaxel) plus carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 1,052 untreated patients with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 100 mg/m(2) nab-paclitaxel weekly and carboplatin at area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 6 once every 3 weeks (nab-PC) or 200 mg/m(2) sb-paclitaxel plus carboplatin AUC 6 once every 3 weeks (sb-PC). The primary end point was objective overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS On the basis of independent assessment, nab-PC demonstrated a significantly higher ORR than sb-PC (33% v 25%; response rate ratio, 1.313; 95% CI, 1.082 to 1.593; P = .005) and in patients with squamous histology (41% v 24%; response rate ratio, 1.680; 95% CI, 1.271 to 2.221; P < .001). nab-PC was as effective as sb-PC in patients with nonsquamous histology (ORR, 26% v 25%; P = .808). There was an approximately 10% improvement in progression-free survival (median, 6.3 v 5.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.902; 95% CI, 0.767 to 1.060; P = .214) and overall survival (OS; median, 12.1 v 11.2 months; HR, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.066; P = .271) in the nab-PC arm versus the sb-PC arm, respectively. Patients ≥ 70 years old and those enrolled in North America showed a significantly increased OS with nab-PC versus sb-PC. Significantly less grade ≥ 3 neuropathy, neutropenia, arthralgia, and myalgia occurred in the nab-PC arm, and less thrombocytopenia and anemia occurred in the sb-PC arm. CONCLUSION The administration of nab-PC as first-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC was efficacious and resulted in a significantly improved ORR versus sb-PC, achieving the primary end point. nab-PC produced less neuropathy than sb-PC.

Multicenter, Phase II Trial of Sunitinib in Previously Treated, Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Aberrant vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) signaling have been shown to play a role in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) pathogenesis and are associated with decreased survival. We evaluated the clinical activity and tolerability of sunitinib malate (SU11248), an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of receptors for VEGF and PDGF, as well as related tyrosine kinases in patients with previously treated, advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC for whom platinum-based chemotherapy had failed received 50 mg/d of sunitinib for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks of no treatment in 6-week treatment cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR); secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS Of the 63 patients treated with sunitinib, seven patients had confirmed partial responses, yielding an ORR of 11.1% (95% CI, 4.6% to 21.6%). An additional 18 patients (28.6%) experienced stable disease of at least 8 weeks in duration. Median progression-free survival was 12.0 weeks (95% CI, 10.0 to 16.1 weeks), and median overall survival was 23.4 weeks (95% CI, 17.0 to 28.3 weeks). Therapy was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION Sunitinib has promising single-agent activity in patients with recurrent NSCLC, with an ORR similar to that of currently approved agents and an acceptable safety profile. Further evaluation in combination with other targeted agents and chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC is warranted.

Systematic Review Evaluating the Timing of Thoracic Radiation Therapy in Combined Modality Therapy for Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE We employed meta-analytic techniques to evaluate early (E) versus late (L) timing of thoracic radiation therapy (RT) in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC). In addition, we assessed the impact of radiation fractionation and chemotherapeutic regimen on timing. METHODS Randomized trials published after 1985 addressing timing of RT relative to chemotherapy in LS-SCLC were included. Trials were analyzed by risk ratio (RR), risk difference, and number-needed-to-treat methods. RESULTS Overall survival (OS) RRs for all studies were 1.17 at 2 years (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.35; P = .03) and 1.13 at 3 years (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.39; P = .2), indicating a significantly increased 2-year survival for ERT versus LRT patients and suggestive of a similar trend at 3 years. Subset analysis of studies using hyperfractionated RT revealed OS RR for ERT versus LRT of 1.44 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.77; P = .001) and 1.39 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.90; P = .04) at 2 and 3 years, respectively, indicating a survival benefit of ERT versus LRT. Studies using once-daily fractionation showed no difference in 2- and 3-year OS RRs for ERT compared with LRT. Studies using platinum-based chemotherapy had OS RRs of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.53; P = .002) and 1.35 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.70; P = .01) at 2 and 3 years, respectively, favoring ERT. Studies using nonplatinum-based chemotherapy regimens had nonsignificant differences in OS. CONCLUSION A small but significant improvement in 2-year OS for ERT versus LRT in LS-SCLC was observed, similar to the benefit of adding RT to chemotherapy or prophylactic cranial irradiation. A greater difference was evident for hyperfractionated RT and platinum-based chemotherapy.

First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Nivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open‐label phase 3 trial, we compared first‐line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1)–positive NSCLC. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD‐L1 tumor‐expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum‐based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression‐free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD‐L1 expression level of 5% or more. RESULTS Among the 423 patients with a PD‐L1 expression level of 5% or more, the median progression‐free survival was 4.2 months with nivolumab versus 5.9 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.45; P=0.25), and the median overall survival was 14.4 months versus 13.2 months (hazard ratio for death, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.30). A total of 128 of 212 patients (60%) in the chemotherapy group received nivolumab as subsequent therapy. Treatment‐related adverse events of any grade occurred in 71% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 92% of those who received chemotherapy. Treatment‐related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 18% of the patients who received nivolumab and in 51% of those who received chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Nivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression‐free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD‐L1 expression level of 5% or more. Overall survival was similar between groups. Nivolumab had a favorable safety profile, as compared with chemotherapy, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Funded by Bristol‐Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 026 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02041533.)

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).