Martin Sebastian

Ipilimumab in Combination With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin As First-Line Treatment in Stage IIIB/IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Phase II Study

PURPOSE Ipilimumab, which is an anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. METHODS Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. FINDINGS Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35-44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31-37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28.2 months (95% CI 24.6-33.6) in the afatinib group and 28.2 months (20.7-33.2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 20.4-27.3) in the afatinib group and 23.5 months (18.0-25.6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, p=0.61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33.3 months (95% CI 26.8-41.5) in the afatinib group versus 21.1 months (16.3-30.7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.79, p=0.0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31.4 months (95% CI 24.2-35.3) versus 18.4 months (14.6-25.6), respectively (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p=0.023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27.6 months (19.8-41.7) in the afatinib group versus 40.3 months (24.3-not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.11, p=0.29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19.6 months (95% CI 17.0-22.1) versus 24.3 months (19.0-27.0), respectively (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81-1.83, p=0.34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3-4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). INTERPRETATION Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

Osimertinib or Platinum-Pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-Positive Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Osimertinib is an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR‐TKI) that is selective for both EGFR‐TKI sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations in patients with non–small‐cell lung cancer. The efficacy of osimertinib as compared with platinum‐based therapy plus pemetrexed in such patients is unknown. METHODS In this randomized, international, open‐label, phase 3 trial, we assigned 419 patients with T790M‐positive advanced non–small‐cell lung cancer, who had disease progression after first‐line EGFR‐TKI therapy, in a 2:1 ratio to receive either oral osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body‐surface area) plus either carboplatin (target area under the curve, 5 [AUC5]) or cisplatin (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles; maintenance pemetrexed was allowed. In all the patients, disease had progressed during receipt of first‐line EGFR‐TKI therapy. The primary end point was investigator‐assessed progression‐free survival. RESULTS The median duration of progression‐free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (10.1 months vs. 4.4 months; hazard ratio; 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.41; P<0.001). The objective response rate was significantly better with osimertinib (71%; 95% CI, 65 to 76) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (31%; 95% CI, 24 to 40) (odds ratio for objective response, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.47 to 8.48; P<0.001). Among 144 patients with metastases to the central nervous system (CNS), the median duration of progression‐free survival was longer among patients receiving osimertinib than among those receiving platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (8.5 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.49). The proportion of patients with adverse events of grade 3 or higher was lower with osimertinib (23%) than with platinum therapy plus pemetrexed (47%). CONCLUSIONS Osimertinib had significantly greater efficacy than platinum therapy plus pemetrexed in patients with T790M‐positive advanced non–small‐cell lung cancer (including those with CNS metastases) in whom disease had progressed during first‐line EGFR‐TKI therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; AURA3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02151981.)

Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab+paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). DESIGN Patients (n=130) with chemotherapy-naïve ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the curve=6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab+paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo+paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo+paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab+paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Phased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio)=0.64; P=0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR=0.93; P=0.37) or OS (HR=0.75; P=0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively. CONCLUSION These results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.

Randomized Phase II Study of Vandetanib Alone or With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Vandetanib is a once-daily, oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. The antitumor activity of vandetanib monotherapy or vandetanib with paclitaxel and carboplatin (VPC) was compared with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) in previously untreated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS All NSCLC histologies and previously treated CNS metastases were permitted in this partially blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II study. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1:1 to receive vandetanib, VPC, or PC. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point, and the study was powered to detect a reduced risk of progression with VPC versus PC (hazard ratio = 0.70; one-sided P < .2) and to demonstrate noninferiority for vandetanib versus PC. Overall survival was a secondary assessment. RESULTS The risk of progression was reduced for patients receiving VPC (n = 56) versus PC (n = 52; hazard ratio = 0.76, one-sided P = .098); median PFS was 24 weeks (VPC) and 23 weeks (PC). The vandetanib monotherapy arm (n = 73) was discontinued after a planned interim PFS analysis met the criterion for discontinuation (hazard ratio > 1.33 v PC). Overall survival was not significantly different between patients receiving VPC or PC. Rash, diarrhea, and hypertension were common adverse events; no pulmonary or CNS hemorrhage events required intervention. CONCLUSION VPC could be safely administered to patients with NSCLC, including those with squamous cell histology and treated brain metastases. Compared with the PC control arm, patients receiving VPC had longer PFS, meeting the prespecified study end point, whereas those receiving vandetanib monotherapy had shorter PFS.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Human Gene Expression Profiles Identifies Stromal Immunoglobulin κ C as a Compatible Prognostic Marker in Human Solid Tumors

Purpose: Although the central role of the immune system for tumor prognosis is generally accepted, a single robust marker is not yet available. Experimental Design: On the basis of receiver operating characteristic analyses, robust markers were identified from a 60-gene B cell–derived metagene and analyzed in gene expression profiles of 1,810 breast cancer; 1,056 non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC); 513 colorectal; and 426 ovarian cancer patients. Protein and RNA levels were examined in paraffin-embedded tissue of 330 breast cancer patients. The cell types were identified with immunohistochemical costaining and confocal fluorescence microscopy. Results: We identified immunoglobulin κ C (IGKC) which as a single marker is similarly predictive and prognostic as the entire B-cell metagene. IGKC was consistently associated with metastasis-free survival across different molecular subtypes in node-negative breast cancer (n = 965) and predicted response to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 845; P < 0.001). In addition, IGKC gene expression was prognostic in NSCLC and colorectal cancer. No association was observed in ovarian cancer. IGKC protein expression was significantly associated with survival in paraffin-embedded tissues of 330 breast cancer patients. Tumor-infiltrating plasma cells were identified as the source of IGKC expression. Conclusion: Our findings provide IGKC as a novel diagnostic marker for risk stratification in human cancer and support concepts to exploit the humoral immune response for anticancer therapy. It could be validated in several independent cohorts and carried out similarly well in RNA from fresh frozen as well as from paraffin tissue and on protein level by immunostaining. Clin Cancer Res; 18(9); 2695–703. ©2012 AACR.

Increased Antigen Presentation Efficiency by Coupling Antigens to MHC Class I Trafficking Signals

Genetic modification of vaccines by linking the Ag to lysosomal or endosomal targeting signals has been used to route Ags into MHC class II processing compartments for improvement of CD4+ T cell responses. We report in this study that combining an N-terminal leader peptide with an MHC class I trafficking signal (MITD) attached to the C terminus of the Ag strongly improves the presentation of MHC class I and class II epitopes in human and murine dendritic cells (DCs). Such chimeric fusion proteins display a maturation state-dependent subcellular distribution pattern in immature and mature DCs, mimicking the dynamic trafficking properties of MHC molecules. T cell response analysis in vitro and in mice immunized with DCs transfected with Ag-encoding RNA showed that MITD fusion proteins have a profoundly higher stimulatory capacity than wild-type controls. This results in efficient expansion of Ag-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells and improved effector functions. We used CMVpp65 and NY-ESO-1 Ags to study preformed immune responses in CMV-seropositive individuals and cancer patients. We show that linking these Ags to the MITD trafficking signal allows simultaneous, polyepitopic expansion of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, resulting in distinct CD8+ T cell specificities and a surprisingly broad and variable Ag-specific CD4+ repertoire in different individuals.

The Efficacy and Safety of BI 2536, a Novel Plk-1 Inhibitor, in Patients with Stage IIIB/IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Who Had Relapsed after, or Failed, Chemotherapy Results from an Open-Label, Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial

Objective: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of two dosing schedules of BI 2536, a novel polo-like kinase-1 inhibitor, in patients with relapsed stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Ninety-five patients were randomized to intravenous BI 2536 on day 1 (200 mg) or days 1 to 3 (50 or 60 mg) of a 21-day treatment course. BI 2536 doses were escalated beyond course 2 if well tolerated. The primary objective was response, and the secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Primary statistical aim was to demonstrate the difference in objective response rate to historical placebo for both treatment groups. Results: Four patients (4.2%) had a partial response; two were confirmed by independent review. Median PFS was 8.3 weeks (58 days 95% confidence interval [CI]: 48–85) and 7 weeks (49 days 95% CI: 46–70) assessed by investigator and independent review, respectively. Median OS was 28.7 weeks (201 days 95% CI: 180–305). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two treatment schedules regarding clinical benefit, PFS, or OS. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 37% of patients; common nonhematologic adverse events were fatigue (31%) and nausea (27%). Two deaths (pulmonary hemorrhage and sepsis) were considered drug related. There was a trend in favor of the days 1 to 3 dosing schedule in quality of life. BI 2536 displayed moderate interpatient variability. Conclusions: BI 2536 monotherapy has modest efficacy and favorable safety in relapsed non-small cell lung cancer. The findings support the further development of polo-like kinase-1 inhibitors within this indication.

Treatment of malignant pleural effusion with the trifunctional antibody catumaxomab (Removab) (anti-EpCAM x Anti-CD3): results of a phase 1/2 study.

Catumaxomab is a trifunctional monoclonal antibody consisting of a mouse immunoglobulin G2a part and a rat immunoglobulin G2b part with 2 different antigen binding sites binding the epithelial cell adhesion molecule antigen on tumor cells and CD3 on T lymphocytes. The intact Fc region provides a third functional binding site, binding and activating selectively Fcγ receptor I, IIa, and III-positive accessory cells. These binding properties lead to specific tumor cell killing. As catumaxomab demonstrated efficacy in patients with malignant ascites, we performed this phase 1/2 trial in patients with malignant pleural effusion (MPE). We investigated a series of 3 escalating doses of 5 to 200 μg catumaxomab administered intrapleurally to patients with MPE containing epithelial cell adhesion molecule -positive cells. Primary objectives were determination of dose-limiting toxicity, safety, and tolerability. Secondary objectives were efficacy and pharmacodynamics. Twenty-four patients were treated with catumaxomab. Most frequent adverse events were pyrexia, elevated liver enzymes, nausea, and decreased lymphocytes. Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in 2 patients: One had pleural empyema and fatal sepsis and 1 had grade 3 erythema and hepatobiliary disorder. Five patients with breast cancer out of 7 evaluable patients had a response to treatment. Intrapleural administration of catumaxomab is feasible although the substantial number of drop-outs and deaths in short proximity to study treatment raise questions whether MPE is the right indication for catumaxomab or whether the patient population should be defined different. Safety profile was as expected reflecting catumaxomabs mode of action. Preliminary efficacy showed a suggestion of improvement in some patients.

Pemetrexed with or without Matuzumab as Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Stage IIIB/IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: This randomized phase II study investigated pemetrexed in combination with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody matuzumab compared with pemetrexed alone as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 3 weeks either alone (n = 50) or in combination with matuzumab at either 800 mg weekly (n = 51) or 1600 mg every 3 weeks (n = 47). The primary end point was objective response, as assessed by an independent review committee. Results: Tumor EGFR expression was detected in 87% of randomized patients. The objective response rate for the pooled matuzumab-treated arms was 11% compared with 5% for pemetrexed alone (p = 0.332). Apart from one patient in the pemetrexed alone group, all responses occurred in patients whose tumors expressed EGFR. The objective response rate for patients receiving weekly matuzumab was 16% compared with 2% for those receiving matuzumab every 3 weeks. There was also a trend for improved overall survival in patients receiving matuzumab weekly versus every 3 weeks (12.4 months versus 5.9 months, respectively, versus 7.9 months for pemetrexed alone). The combination of pemetrexed and matuzumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, with the most common grade 3/4 adverse event being neutropenia. Conclusion: Although the analysis on the pooled matuzumab-treated arms did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in objective response for the addition of matuzumab to pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed alone, the trends for improvement in objective response and overall survival for pemetrexed plus weekly matuzumab compared with pemetrexed alone warrant confirmation in additional clinical trials.