Sarayut Lucien Geater

Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations

PURPOSE The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. CONCLUSION Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Afatinib-an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker-improves progression-free survival compared with pemetrexed and cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We compared afatinib with gemcitabine and cisplatin-a chemotherapy regimen widely used in Asia-for first-line treatment of Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. METHODS This open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was done at 36 centres in China, Thailand, and South Korea. After central testing for EGFR mutations, treatment-naive patients (stage IIIB or IV cancer [American Joint Committee on Cancer version 6], performance status 0-1) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either oral afatinib (40 mg per day) or intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week schedule for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done centrally with a random number-generating system and an interactive internet and voice-response system. Randomisation was stratified by EGFR mutation (Leu858Arg, exon 19 deletions, or other; block size three). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment assignment, but the independent central imaging review group were. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01121393. FINDINGS 910 patients were screened and 364 were randomly assigned (242 to afatinib, 122 to gemcitabine and cisplatin). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the afatinib group (11·0 months, 95% CI 9·7-13·7) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (5·6 months, 5·1-6·7; hazard ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·20-0·39; p<0·0001). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the afatinib group were rash or acne (35 [14·6%] of 239 patients), diarrhoea (13 [5·4%]), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5·4%]), compared with neutropenia (30 [26·5%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19·5%]), and leucopenia (17 [15·0%]) in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 15 (6·3%) patients in the afatinib group and nine (8·0%) patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group. INTERPRETATION First-line afatinib significantly improves progression-free survival with a tolerable and manageable safety profile in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced lung NSCLC. Afatinib should be considered as a first-line treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

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.

LUX-Lung 3: A randomized, open-label, phase III study of afatinib versus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line treatment for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung harboring EGFR-activating mutations.

LBA7500 Background: Afatinib (A) is a selective, orally bioavailable, irreversible ErbB family blocker of EGFR (ErbB1), HER2 (ErbB2), and ErbB4. This global study investigated the efficacy and safety of A compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin (PC) in pts with EGFR mutation positive advanced lung adenocarcinoma. METHODS Following central testing for EGFR mutations (companion diagnostic TheraScreen EGFR RGQ PCR kit), 345 pts (stage IIIB/IV, PS 0-1, chemo-naive) were randomized 2:1 (A: 230; PC: 115) to daily A 40 mg or iv PC (500 mg/m2 + 75 mg/m2 q21 days up to 6 cycles). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by central independent review. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced in both arms: median age, 61 y; female, 65%; Asian, 72%; never-smoker, 68%; Del19, 49%; L858R, 40%; other mutations, 11%. Treatment with A led to a significantly prolonged PFS vs PC (median 11.1 vs 6.9 mos; HR 0.58 [0.43-0.78]; p=0.0004). In 308 pts with common mutations (Del19/L858R), median PFS was 13.6 vs 6.9 mos, respectively (HR=0.47 [0.34-0.65]; p<0.0001). Objective response rate was significantly higher with A (56% vs 23%; p<0.0001). Significant delay in time to deterioration of cancer-related symptoms of cough (HR=0.60, p=0.0072) and dyspnea (HR=0.68, p=0.0145) was seen with A vs PC. Most common drug-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (95%), rash (62%) and paronychia (57%) with A, and nausea (66%), decreased appetite (53%) and vomiting (42%) with PC. Drug-related AEs led to discontinuation in 8% (A; 1% due to diarrhea) and 12% of pts (PC). CONCLUSIONS LUX-Lung 3 is the largest prospective trial in EGFR mutation positive lung cancer and the first study using pemetrexed/cisplatin as a comparator. Treatment with afatinib significantly prolonged PFS compared to PC, with significant improvements in secondary endpoints. AEs with afatinib were manageable, with a low discontinuation rate. With 4.2 mos PFS improvement in the overall population and 6.7 mos in pts with common mutations, afatinib is a clinically relevant first-line treatment option.

Clinical activity of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations: a combined post-hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3, and LUX-Lung 6

BACKGROUND Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer tumours that have EGFR mutations have deletion mutations in exon 19 or the Leu858Arg point mutation in exon 21, or both (ie, common mutations). However, a subset of patients (10%) with mutations in EGFR have tumours that harbour uncommon mutations. There is a paucity of data regarding the sensitivity of these tumours to EGFR inhibitors. Here we present data for the activity of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer that have tumours harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations. METHODS In this post-hoc analysis, we used prospectively collected data from tyrosine kinase inhibitor-naive patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced (stage IIIb-IV) lung adenocarcinomas who were given afatinib in a single group phase 2 trial (LUX-Lung 2), and randomised phase 3 trials (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6). Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, including all randomly assigned patients with uncommon EGFR mutations. The type of EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg point mutation in exon 21, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only; Asian vs non-Asian) were pre-specified stratification factors in the randomised trials. We categorised all uncommon mutations as: point mutations or duplications in exons 18-21 (group 1); de-novo Thr790Met mutations in exon 20 alone or in combination with other mutations (group 2); or exon 20 insertions (group 3). We also assessed outcomes in patients with the most frequent uncommon mutations, Gly719Xaa, Leu861Gln, and Ser768Ile, alone or in combination with other mutations. Response was established by independent radiological review. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00525148, NCT00949650, and NCT01121393. FINDINGS Of 600 patients given afatinib across the three trials, 75 (12%) patients had uncommon EGFR mutations (38 in group 1, 14 in group 2, 23 in group 3). 27 (71·1%, 95% CI 54·1-84·6) patients in group 1 had objective responses, as did two (14·3%, 1·8-42·8) in group 2 and two (8·7%, 1·1-28·0) in group 3. Median progression-free survival was 10·7 months (95% CI 5·6-14·7) in group 1, 2·9 months (1·2-8·3) in group 2; and 2·7 months (1·8-4·2) in group 3. Median overall survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 16·4-26·9) in group 1, 14·9 months (8·1-24·9) in group 2, and 9·2 months (4·1-14·2) in group 3. For the most frequent uncommon mutations, 14 (77·8%, 95% CI 52·4-93·6) patients with Gly719Xaa had an objective response, as did nine (56·3%, 29·9-80·2) with Leu861Gln, and eight (100·0%, 63·1-100·0) with Ser768Ile. INTERPRETATION Afatinib was active in non-small-cell lung cancer tumours that harboured certain types of uncommon EGFR mutations, especially Gly719Xaa, Leu861Gln, and Ser768Ile, but less active in other mutations types. Clinical benefit was lower in patients with de-novo Thr790Met and exon 20 insertion mutations. These data could help inform clinical decisions for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

First-line ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (ASCEND-4): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND The efficacy of ceritinib in patients with untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study in untreated patients with stage IIIB/IV ALK-rearranged non-squamous NSCLC was done in 134 centres across 28 countries. Eligible patients were assigned via interactive response technology to oral ceritinib 750 mg/day or platinum-based chemotherapy ([cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5-6 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m2] every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed); randomisation was stratified by World Health Organization performance status (0 vs 1-2), previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, and presence of brain metastases as per investigators assessment at screening. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, based on all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set). Efficacy analyses were done based on the full analysis set. All safety analyses were done based on the safety set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828099. FINDINGS Between Aug 19, 2013, and May 11, 2015, 376 patients were randomly assigned to ceritinib (n=189) or chemotherapy (n=187). Median progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16·6 months (95% CI 12·6-27·2) in the ceritinib group and 8·1 months (5·8-11·1) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·42-0·73]; p<0·00001). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (in 160 [85%] of 189 patients), nausea (130 [69%]), vomiting (125 [66%]), and an increase in alanine aminotransferase (114 [60%]) in the ceritinib group and nausea (in 97 [55%] of 175 patients), vomiting (63 [36%]), and anaemia (62 [35%]) in the chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION First-line ceritinib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Symptom and Quality of Life Improvement in LUX-Lung 6: An Open-Label Phase III Study of Afatinib Versus Cisplatin/Gemcitabine in Asian Patients With EGFR Mutation-Positive Advanced Non–small-cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: In the phase III, LUX-Lung 6 trial, afatinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in Asian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This article provides detailed assessments of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), a LUX-Lung 6 secondary end point, and explores the relationship between PFS and health-related quality of life (QoL) in these patients. Methods: Patients (n = 364) were randomized (2:1) to oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or up to six cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine (21-day cycle; cisplatin 75 mg/m2 [d1]; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 [d1,8]). QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and its lung cancer-specific module. The relationship between PFS (investigator assessment and independent review) and QoL was evaluated using analysis of covariance and a longitudinal model. Results: More patients treated with afatinib versus cisplatin/gemcitabine showed improvements in global health status/QoL (p < 0.0001) and physical (p < 0.0001), role (p = 0.013), and social (p < 0.001) functioning scales. Delayed symptom deterioration and better QoL over time was also observed with afatinib. QoL measured before tumor assessment was considerably poorer for patients with progression than those without progression, with significant differences in mean scores at multiple assessment time points. Results from the longitudinal analysis consistently demonstrated a significant negative impact of progression on QoL (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Afatinib improved PFS and PROs versus chemotherapy in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients. Progression was associated with statistically significant worsening in QoL measured before tumor assessment, underscoring the value of PFS as a clinically relevant end point.

A Randomized Phase 2 Study Comparing the Combination of Ficlatuzumab and Gefitinib with Gefitinib Alone in Asian Patients with Advanced Stage Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

Introduction: A randomized phase 2 study was designed to compare the combination of ficlatuzumab (AV‐299), a humanized hepatocyte growth factor–neutralizing monoclonal antibody, plus gefitinib versus gefitinib monotherapy in a pulmonary adenocarcinoma population clinically enriched for EFGR tyrosine kinase inhibitor–sensitizing mutations. Methods: A total of 188 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either gefitinib or ficlatuzumab plus gefitinib treatment. Patients who demonstrated disease control in the single‐agent gefitinib arm were allowed to cross over to ficlatuzumab plus gefitinib treatment upon disease progression. Molecular analyses included tumor EGFR mutation status and retrospective proteomic testing using VeriStrat, a multivariate test based on mass spectrometry. Results: The addition of ficlatuzumab to gefitinib did not provide significant improvement over gefitinib monotherapy for the primary end point of overall response rate or the secondary end points of progression‐free survival and overall survival. In the subgroup classified as VeriStrat poor, the addition of ficlatuzumab to gefitinib showed significant improvement in both progression‐free survival and overall survival in both the intent‐to‐treat population and the subgroup with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor–sensitizing mutations. For all patients, the most frequent adverse events were diarrhea, dermatitis acneiform, and paronychia. Conclusions: Although the trial showed no significant benefit from the addition of ficlatuzumab to gefitinib in the overall population of Asian patients with advanced‐stage pulmonary adenocarcinoma, the biomarker data suggest that patients classified as VeriStrat poor may benefit from ficlatuzumab combination therapy.

Prognostic significance of 14-3-3γ overexpression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

The 14-3-3 protein has been shown to be involved in the cancer process. However, there is no understanding of the relationship between 14-3-3γ (14-3-3 gamma) expression and prognosis in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. In this study, we therefore investigated the association between protein levels by immunohistochemistry and clinicopathological features of advanced NSCLC patients. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and tested by log-rank. Multivariate analysis was conducted with the Coxs regression model to determine independence of factors. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. A total 153 patients were studied, with 54.3% being stage III and 45.8% stage IV. Fifty-one cases (33.3%) were squamous cell carcinomas, and 98 cases (64.1%) were adenocarcinomas. High 14-3-3γ expression was seen in 59.5% and significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis (p=0.010) and distant metastasis (p=0.017). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, high 14-3-3γ expression was associated with poorer survival with a marginal trend toward significance (p=0.055). On multivariate analysis, age, treatment, and 14-3-3γ expression proved to be independent prognostic parameters. In vitro experiments indicated that 14-3-3γ overexpression also played a potential role in cancer invasion. In conclusion, our data suggest that 14-3-3γ overexpression is associated with invasion and a poor prognosis. Therefore, 14-3-3γ may be a potential prognostic marker of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Randomized phase II study of two intercalated combinations of eribulin mesylate and erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND This phase II, open-label study investigated intercalated combinations of eribulin and erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients were randomized to eribulin mesylate 2.0 mg/m(2) on day 1 with erlotinib 150 mg on days 2-16 (21-day regimen) or eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 with erlotinib 150 mg on days 15-28 (28-day regimen). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS One hundred and twenty-three patients received ≥ 1 cycle of therapy (63, 21-day regimen; 60, 28-day regimen). ORRs were 13% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6%-24%] and 17% (95% CI 8%-29%), and disease control rates were 48% (95% CI 35%-61%) and 63% (95% CI 50%-75%) for the 21- and 28-day regimens, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were similar with both regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated with common grade ≥ 3 toxicities being neutropenia, asthenia/fatigue, and dyspnoea. Sequential administration of erlotinib did not interfere with the pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin. CONCLUSION Intercalated combination of eribulin and erlotinib demonstrated modest activity and the addition of erlotinib did not appear to improve treatment outcome in an unselected population. The 28-day regimen is suitable for further investigation. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01104155.