Lung Cancer

Patients with claudication consulting a peripheral arterial disease provider are often active smokers, rarely receive evidence-based cessation interventions, and frequently relapse if they do quit, according to a report published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Zoonar/A.Mijatovic/Thinkstock

More than one-third of patients with claudication consulting PAD specialists are active smokers, as seen in a data analysis of an international registry, wrote Krishna K. Patel, MD, of the department of cardiology, University of Missouri–Kansas City, and her colleagues.

The authors assessed 1,272 patients with PAD and new or worsening claudication who were enrolled at 16 vascular specialty clinics from 2011 to 2015 in the PORTRAIT (Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories) registry, (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01419080).

In-person interviews obtained smoking status from the patients and information on cessation interventions at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At baseline, 474 (37%) patients were active, 660 (52%) were former, and 138 (11%) were never smokers.

Among active smokers, only 16% were referred to cessation counseling, and only 11% were prescribed pharmacologic treatment.

At 3 months, the probability of quitting smoking was 21%. Those who kept smoking had a probability of quitting during the next 9 months that varied between 11% and 12% (P less than .001). The probability of relapse was high, with more than one-third of initial quitters (36%) resuming smoking, and at 12 months; 72% of all original smokers continued to smoke, according to the authors.

The high level of initial smoking and the failed efforts at attempting cessation are clinically important because cigarette smoking is the most important and modifiable risk factor for PAD, and patients with PAD who smoke have higher rates of disease progression, according to Dr. Patel and her colleagues.

“Few patients receive formal cessation interventions. The dynamic nature of these patients’ smoking practices also underscores the need for ongoing assessment of smoking, even among those who report that they have quit, and consistent offering of evidence-based cessation support. Future research should focus on identifying optimal strategies for implementing consistent cessation support,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and an unrestricted grant from W. L. Gore & Associates. One of the authors owns the copyright for a Peripheral Artery Questionnaire used in the study and serves as a consultant to United Healthcare, Bayer, and Novartis, with research grants from Abbot Vascular and Novartis. Another author is supported by an unrestricted research grant by Merck and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors reported having no disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Patel KR et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e010076. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010076.

Patients with claudication consulting a peripheral arterial disease provider are often active smokers, rarely receive evidence-based cessation interventions, and frequently relapse if they do quit, according to a report published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Zoonar/A.Mijatovic/Thinkstock

More than one-third of patients with claudication consulting PAD specialists are active smokers, as seen in a data analysis of an international registry, wrote Krishna K. Patel, MD, of the department of cardiology, University of Missouri–Kansas City, and her colleagues.

The authors assessed 1,272 patients with PAD and new or worsening claudication who were enrolled at 16 vascular specialty clinics from 2011 to 2015 in the PORTRAIT (Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories) registry, (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01419080).

In-person interviews obtained smoking status from the patients and information on cessation interventions at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At baseline, 474 (37%) patients were active, 660 (52%) were former, and 138 (11%) were never smokers.

Among active smokers, only 16% were referred to cessation counseling, and only 11% were prescribed pharmacologic treatment.

At 3 months, the probability of quitting smoking was 21%. Those who kept smoking had a probability of quitting during the next 9 months that varied between 11% and 12% (P less than .001). The probability of relapse was high, with more than one-third of initial quitters (36%) resuming smoking, and at 12 months; 72% of all original smokers continued to smoke, according to the authors.

The high level of initial smoking and the failed efforts at attempting cessation are clinically important because cigarette smoking is the most important and modifiable risk factor for PAD, and patients with PAD who smoke have higher rates of disease progression, according to Dr. Patel and her colleagues.

“Few patients receive formal cessation interventions. The dynamic nature of these patients’ smoking practices also underscores the need for ongoing assessment of smoking, even among those who report that they have quit, and consistent offering of evidence-based cessation support. Future research should focus on identifying optimal strategies for implementing consistent cessation support,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and an unrestricted grant from W. L. Gore & Associates. One of the authors owns the copyright for a Peripheral Artery Questionnaire used in the study and serves as a consultant to United Healthcare, Bayer, and Novartis, with research grants from Abbot Vascular and Novartis. Another author is supported by an unrestricted research grant by Merck and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors reported having no disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Patel KR et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e010076. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010076.

Patients with claudication consulting a peripheral arterial disease provider are often active smokers, rarely receive evidence-based cessation interventions, and frequently relapse if they do quit, according to a report published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Zoonar/A.Mijatovic/Thinkstock

More than one-third of patients with claudication consulting PAD specialists are active smokers, as seen in a data analysis of an international registry, wrote Krishna K. Patel, MD, of the department of cardiology, University of Missouri–Kansas City, and her colleagues.

The authors assessed 1,272 patients with PAD and new or worsening claudication who were enrolled at 16 vascular specialty clinics from 2011 to 2015 in the PORTRAIT (Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories) registry, (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01419080).

In-person interviews obtained smoking status from the patients and information on cessation interventions at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At baseline, 474 (37%) patients were active, 660 (52%) were former, and 138 (11%) were never smokers.

Among active smokers, only 16% were referred to cessation counseling, and only 11% were prescribed pharmacologic treatment.

At 3 months, the probability of quitting smoking was 21%. Those who kept smoking had a probability of quitting during the next 9 months that varied between 11% and 12% (P less than .001). The probability of relapse was high, with more than one-third of initial quitters (36%) resuming smoking, and at 12 months; 72% of all original smokers continued to smoke, according to the authors.

The high level of initial smoking and the failed efforts at attempting cessation are clinically important because cigarette smoking is the most important and modifiable risk factor for PAD, and patients with PAD who smoke have higher rates of disease progression, according to Dr. Patel and her colleagues.

“Few patients receive formal cessation interventions. The dynamic nature of these patients’ smoking practices also underscores the need for ongoing assessment of smoking, even among those who report that they have quit, and consistent offering of evidence-based cessation support. Future research should focus on identifying optimal strategies for implementing consistent cessation support,” the researchers concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and an unrestricted grant from W. L. Gore & Associates. One of the authors owns the copyright for a Peripheral Artery Questionnaire used in the study and serves as a consultant to United Healthcare, Bayer, and Novartis, with research grants from Abbot Vascular and Novartis. Another author is supported by an unrestricted research grant by Merck and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors reported having no disclosures.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Patel KR et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e010076. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010076.

MUNICH – Patients with HIV who are treated with nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, appear to have similar safety and efficacy outcomes compared with HIV-negative patients treated with the same agent, investigators found.

The retrospective study also showed that viral load and CD4 status were largely unchanged by immunotherapy, lead author Aurélien Gobert, MD, of Groupe Hospitalier Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

HIV increases risks of certain cancer types, Dr. Gobert said in a press release. “These patients are at higher risk for a number of cancers: AIDS-defining forms, the diagnosis of which results in the categorization of a person as suffering from AIDS, but also various other types that they are two to three times more likely to develop than in the general population, such as anal, skin, head and neck, and lung cancer,” he said.

Despite the increased risks, few studies have evaluated cancer treatments for patients with HIV due to exclusions from most clinical trials. As HIV is an immune-based disease, concerns have arisen surrounding the safety and efficacy of using anti-neoplastic immunotherapies for HIV-positive patients. Considering that millions of people worldwide are HIV positive, research in this area can have real-world consequences.

Dr. Gobert and his colleagues analyzed data from CANCERVIH, a French national database of patients with cancer and HIV. Since May 2014, nivolumab has been administered to 20 patients. Nineteen had metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer and 1 had metastatic melanoma. At diagnosis, the median CD4 count was 338.5 per cubic millimeter. Seventeen patients had undetectable viral load, two had fewer than 40 copies per millimeter, and one patient’s viral load was unknown. Dr. Gobert described the population as “demographically homogenous,” with “most patients being males around 60 years old.”

Analysis showed that nivolumab had little impact on CD4 count or viral load. One patient had a decreased CD4 count and an increased viral load, but this occurred during an interruption to antiretroviral therapy, which clouds potential associations with nivolumab. No immune-related adverse events or deaths due to drug toxicity occurred. Efficacy was assessed in 17 patients: Four (24%) showed a partial response, 2 (12%) had stable disease, and 11 (64%) had disease progression.

“Based on these preliminary data, treatment with anti-PD-1 ... seems to be feasible in people with HIV,” Dr. Gobert reported. He added that “antiretroviral therapy should not be interrupted.”

In a comment for ESMO, John Haanen, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, said that the results “confirm those of other, smaller cohorts in showing that while on antiretroviral therapy, cancer patients living with HIV can safely receive anti-PD-1 treatment. The efficacy data also suggests that the overall response rate of HIV-positive patients seems to be similar to that of other cancer patients. These promising results need to be confirmed in larger studies – ideally, in a prospective clinical trial.”

Principal investigator Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, disclosed relationships with Gilead, Roche, BMS, and others.

SOURCE: Gobert et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 1213P_PR.

MUNICH – Patients with HIV who are treated with nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, appear to have similar safety and efficacy outcomes compared with HIV-negative patients treated with the same agent, investigators found.

The retrospective study also showed that viral load and CD4 status were largely unchanged by immunotherapy, lead author Aurélien Gobert, MD, of Groupe Hospitalier Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

HIV increases risks of certain cancer types, Dr. Gobert said in a press release. “These patients are at higher risk for a number of cancers: AIDS-defining forms, the diagnosis of which results in the categorization of a person as suffering from AIDS, but also various other types that they are two to three times more likely to develop than in the general population, such as anal, skin, head and neck, and lung cancer,” he said.

Despite the increased risks, few studies have evaluated cancer treatments for patients with HIV due to exclusions from most clinical trials. As HIV is an immune-based disease, concerns have arisen surrounding the safety and efficacy of using anti-neoplastic immunotherapies for HIV-positive patients. Considering that millions of people worldwide are HIV positive, research in this area can have real-world consequences.

Dr. Gobert and his colleagues analyzed data from CANCERVIH, a French national database of patients with cancer and HIV. Since May 2014, nivolumab has been administered to 20 patients. Nineteen had metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer and 1 had metastatic melanoma. At diagnosis, the median CD4 count was 338.5 per cubic millimeter. Seventeen patients had undetectable viral load, two had fewer than 40 copies per millimeter, and one patient’s viral load was unknown. Dr. Gobert described the population as “demographically homogenous,” with “most patients being males around 60 years old.”

Analysis showed that nivolumab had little impact on CD4 count or viral load. One patient had a decreased CD4 count and an increased viral load, but this occurred during an interruption to antiretroviral therapy, which clouds potential associations with nivolumab. No immune-related adverse events or deaths due to drug toxicity occurred. Efficacy was assessed in 17 patients: Four (24%) showed a partial response, 2 (12%) had stable disease, and 11 (64%) had disease progression.

“Based on these preliminary data, treatment with anti-PD-1 ... seems to be feasible in people with HIV,” Dr. Gobert reported. He added that “antiretroviral therapy should not be interrupted.”

In a comment for ESMO, John Haanen, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, said that the results “confirm those of other, smaller cohorts in showing that while on antiretroviral therapy, cancer patients living with HIV can safely receive anti-PD-1 treatment. The efficacy data also suggests that the overall response rate of HIV-positive patients seems to be similar to that of other cancer patients. These promising results need to be confirmed in larger studies – ideally, in a prospective clinical trial.”

Principal investigator Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, disclosed relationships with Gilead, Roche, BMS, and others.

SOURCE: Gobert et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 1213P_PR.

MUNICH – Patients with HIV who are treated with nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, appear to have similar safety and efficacy outcomes compared with HIV-negative patients treated with the same agent, investigators found.

The retrospective study also showed that viral load and CD4 status were largely unchanged by immunotherapy, lead author Aurélien Gobert, MD, of Groupe Hospitalier Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

HIV increases risks of certain cancer types, Dr. Gobert said in a press release. “These patients are at higher risk for a number of cancers: AIDS-defining forms, the diagnosis of which results in the categorization of a person as suffering from AIDS, but also various other types that they are two to three times more likely to develop than in the general population, such as anal, skin, head and neck, and lung cancer,” he said.

Despite the increased risks, few studies have evaluated cancer treatments for patients with HIV due to exclusions from most clinical trials. As HIV is an immune-based disease, concerns have arisen surrounding the safety and efficacy of using anti-neoplastic immunotherapies for HIV-positive patients. Considering that millions of people worldwide are HIV positive, research in this area can have real-world consequences.

Dr. Gobert and his colleagues analyzed data from CANCERVIH, a French national database of patients with cancer and HIV. Since May 2014, nivolumab has been administered to 20 patients. Nineteen had metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer and 1 had metastatic melanoma. At diagnosis, the median CD4 count was 338.5 per cubic millimeter. Seventeen patients had undetectable viral load, two had fewer than 40 copies per millimeter, and one patient’s viral load was unknown. Dr. Gobert described the population as “demographically homogenous,” with “most patients being males around 60 years old.”

Analysis showed that nivolumab had little impact on CD4 count or viral load. One patient had a decreased CD4 count and an increased viral load, but this occurred during an interruption to antiretroviral therapy, which clouds potential associations with nivolumab. No immune-related adverse events or deaths due to drug toxicity occurred. Efficacy was assessed in 17 patients: Four (24%) showed a partial response, 2 (12%) had stable disease, and 11 (64%) had disease progression.

“Based on these preliminary data, treatment with anti-PD-1 ... seems to be feasible in people with HIV,” Dr. Gobert reported. He added that “antiretroviral therapy should not be interrupted.”

In a comment for ESMO, John Haanen, PhD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, said that the results “confirm those of other, smaller cohorts in showing that while on antiretroviral therapy, cancer patients living with HIV can safely receive anti-PD-1 treatment. The efficacy data also suggests that the overall response rate of HIV-positive patients seems to be similar to that of other cancer patients. These promising results need to be confirmed in larger studies – ideally, in a prospective clinical trial.”

Principal investigator Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, disclosed relationships with Gilead, Roche, BMS, and others.

SOURCE: Gobert et al. ESMO 2018, Abstract 1213P_PR.

TORONTO – Prophylactic cranial irradiation, which is standard-of-care practice in patients with small cell lung cancer, also appears to improve intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS) and overall survival in patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to findings from a randomized study.

The cumulative incidence of brain metastases at 2 years was 22% in 41 patients who received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI), compared with 52% in 43 patients who received standard care with first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) without PCI, Oscar Arrieta, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

PCI was associated with lower odds of progression to the CNS (odds ratio, 0.16), Dr. Arrieta, of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Further, the relative risk for iPFS in patients with an epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation (ALK), who comprised 70% of patients in both groups, was 0.29 with PCI.

Median overall survival in the groups was 42.8 months versus 25.9 months (HR, 0.48).

The burden of brain metastases can impact the quality and length of survival in patients with NSCLC, and because of an aging population and advances in detection and treatment of primary cancers, patients are living longer and thus are more likely to experience brain metastases, Dr. Arrieta said, noting that this is particularly true for patients at high risk, such as those with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels.

Although PCI is standard in small cell lung cancer, its role in NSCLC remains controversial because of concerns about neurologic morbidity and lack of overall survival benefit, he explained.

“The objective of this study was to determine if the use of PCI reduced the development of brain metastases and improved the survival in this population without impairing quality of life,” he said.

Study participants were patients with confirmed stage IV NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology at high risk for developing brain metastasis. PCI in the treatment group was delivered at 25 Gy/10 fractions.

The findings suggest that in NSCLC with a high risk of developing brain metastases who are treated with a first- or second-generation TKI – particularly those with EGFR and ALK mutations – PCI increases iPFS, Dr. Arrieta said.

“The findings can be extrapolated to those treated with third-generation TKIs, which have higher CNS penetration,” he said, noting, however, that access to third-generation TKIs is limited in most developing countries and cost barriers are high.

Of note, the relatively low dose of PCI used in this study was not associated with significant differences in Mini-Mental State Examination or quality of life scores in the short-term. Long-term assessments are needed, he said, concluding that, while additional study is needed to confirm the findings, the results, including the overall survival benefit seen with PCI, “highlight the benefits of this approach, particularly among patients with a high risk of developing brain metastases.”

Invited discussant Nasser Hanna, MD, the Tom and Julie Wood Family Foundation Professor of Lung Cancer Clinical Research at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the findings of this “interesting and important study,” are intriguing, but agreed that additional study is needed.

“The study is far too small ... to definitively make this conclusion [that PCI improves iPFS in this population]; I would not recommend PCI without confirmatory data from larger, randomized trials,” he said.

Dr. Arrieta reported advisory roles or provision of expert testimony for Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck, Takeda, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and receipt of honoraria and/or research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Nasser reported receiving research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Merck.

SOURCE: Arrieta O et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract MA08.02.

TORONTO – Prophylactic cranial irradiation, which is standard-of-care practice in patients with small cell lung cancer, also appears to improve intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS) and overall survival in patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to findings from a randomized study.

The cumulative incidence of brain metastases at 2 years was 22% in 41 patients who received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI), compared with 52% in 43 patients who received standard care with first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) without PCI, Oscar Arrieta, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

PCI was associated with lower odds of progression to the CNS (odds ratio, 0.16), Dr. Arrieta, of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Further, the relative risk for iPFS in patients with an epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation (ALK), who comprised 70% of patients in both groups, was 0.29 with PCI.

Median overall survival in the groups was 42.8 months versus 25.9 months (HR, 0.48).

The burden of brain metastases can impact the quality and length of survival in patients with NSCLC, and because of an aging population and advances in detection and treatment of primary cancers, patients are living longer and thus are more likely to experience brain metastases, Dr. Arrieta said, noting that this is particularly true for patients at high risk, such as those with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels.

Although PCI is standard in small cell lung cancer, its role in NSCLC remains controversial because of concerns about neurologic morbidity and lack of overall survival benefit, he explained.

“The objective of this study was to determine if the use of PCI reduced the development of brain metastases and improved the survival in this population without impairing quality of life,” he said.

Study participants were patients with confirmed stage IV NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology at high risk for developing brain metastasis. PCI in the treatment group was delivered at 25 Gy/10 fractions.

The findings suggest that in NSCLC with a high risk of developing brain metastases who are treated with a first- or second-generation TKI – particularly those with EGFR and ALK mutations – PCI increases iPFS, Dr. Arrieta said.

“The findings can be extrapolated to those treated with third-generation TKIs, which have higher CNS penetration,” he said, noting, however, that access to third-generation TKIs is limited in most developing countries and cost barriers are high.

Of note, the relatively low dose of PCI used in this study was not associated with significant differences in Mini-Mental State Examination or quality of life scores in the short-term. Long-term assessments are needed, he said, concluding that, while additional study is needed to confirm the findings, the results, including the overall survival benefit seen with PCI, “highlight the benefits of this approach, particularly among patients with a high risk of developing brain metastases.”

Invited discussant Nasser Hanna, MD, the Tom and Julie Wood Family Foundation Professor of Lung Cancer Clinical Research at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the findings of this “interesting and important study,” are intriguing, but agreed that additional study is needed.

“The study is far too small ... to definitively make this conclusion [that PCI improves iPFS in this population]; I would not recommend PCI without confirmatory data from larger, randomized trials,” he said.

Dr. Arrieta reported advisory roles or provision of expert testimony for Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck, Takeda, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and receipt of honoraria and/or research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Nasser reported receiving research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Merck.

SOURCE: Arrieta O et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract MA08.02.

TORONTO – Prophylactic cranial irradiation, which is standard-of-care practice in patients with small cell lung cancer, also appears to improve intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS) and overall survival in patients with stage IV non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to findings from a randomized study.

The cumulative incidence of brain metastases at 2 years was 22% in 41 patients who received prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI), compared with 52% in 43 patients who received standard care with first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) without PCI, Oscar Arrieta, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

PCI was associated with lower odds of progression to the CNS (odds ratio, 0.16), Dr. Arrieta, of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, said at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Further, the relative risk for iPFS in patients with an epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation (ALK), who comprised 70% of patients in both groups, was 0.29 with PCI.

Median overall survival in the groups was 42.8 months versus 25.9 months (HR, 0.48).

The burden of brain metastases can impact the quality and length of survival in patients with NSCLC, and because of an aging population and advances in detection and treatment of primary cancers, patients are living longer and thus are more likely to experience brain metastases, Dr. Arrieta said, noting that this is particularly true for patients at high risk, such as those with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels.

Although PCI is standard in small cell lung cancer, its role in NSCLC remains controversial because of concerns about neurologic morbidity and lack of overall survival benefit, he explained.

“The objective of this study was to determine if the use of PCI reduced the development of brain metastases and improved the survival in this population without impairing quality of life,” he said.

Study participants were patients with confirmed stage IV NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology at high risk for developing brain metastasis. PCI in the treatment group was delivered at 25 Gy/10 fractions.

The findings suggest that in NSCLC with a high risk of developing brain metastases who are treated with a first- or second-generation TKI – particularly those with EGFR and ALK mutations – PCI increases iPFS, Dr. Arrieta said.

“The findings can be extrapolated to those treated with third-generation TKIs, which have higher CNS penetration,” he said, noting, however, that access to third-generation TKIs is limited in most developing countries and cost barriers are high.

Of note, the relatively low dose of PCI used in this study was not associated with significant differences in Mini-Mental State Examination or quality of life scores in the short-term. Long-term assessments are needed, he said, concluding that, while additional study is needed to confirm the findings, the results, including the overall survival benefit seen with PCI, “highlight the benefits of this approach, particularly among patients with a high risk of developing brain metastases.”

Invited discussant Nasser Hanna, MD, the Tom and Julie Wood Family Foundation Professor of Lung Cancer Clinical Research at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said the findings of this “interesting and important study,” are intriguing, but agreed that additional study is needed.

“The study is far too small ... to definitively make this conclusion [that PCI improves iPFS in this population]; I would not recommend PCI without confirmatory data from larger, randomized trials,” he said.

Dr. Arrieta reported advisory roles or provision of expert testimony for Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck, Takeda, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and receipt of honoraria and/or research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Nasser reported receiving research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Merck.

SOURCE: Arrieta O et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract MA08.02.

MUNICH – Neoadjuvant erlotinib for patients with stage IIIA (N2) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increased progression-free survival (PFS), compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin, according to results from the recent CTONG 1103 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Despite beating chemotherapy, erlotinib, an epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), fell short of benchmarks set by adjuvant therapy, so it is unlikely that neoadjuvant erlotinib will see clinical use anytime soon.

Lead author Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, PhD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute and Guangdong General Hospital in Guangzhou, China, presenting at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, said that the recent findings support further investigation into biomarker-guided neoadjuvant therapy for stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC, as identifying patient subgroups could potentially improve outcomes.

Principal investigator Yi-Long Wu, MD, described the impetus for CTONG 1103 in an interview. “Recently, the CTONG 1104 trial showed for the first time that adjuvant EGFR-TKI gefitinib could improve disease-free survival ... compared to adjuvant chemotherapy ... in N1N2-resected NSCLC. This raises the possibility that EGFR-TKIs may play a beneficial role in the neoadjuvant setting for this subgroup,” he said.

CTONG 1103 is an ongoing, phase 2, open-label trial. Out of 386 patients screened, 72 were enrolled based on treatment naivety and EGFR mutation positivity (exon 19 or 21). Following randomization, patients received either erlotinib 150 mg daily for 42 days or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m² (days 1 and 8) and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (day 1) every 3 weeks for two cycles. After surgery, patients in the erlotinib group continued therapy for 1 year, while patients in the chemotherapy cohort received two more cycles of treatment.

The primary endpoint was objective response rate, and secondary endpoints included PFS, pathological lymph node downstaging, overall survival, safety measures, and complete pathological response. The investigators also highlighted major pathological response (less than 10% viable cancer cells after preoperative therapy).

The results showed that about half of the patients receiving erlotinib had an objective response (54.1%), compared with approximately one-third in the chemotherapy group (34.3%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .092). Erlotinib also provided a median PFS nearly twice that of chemotherapy (21.5 months vs. 11.9 months; P = .003) and more frequent lymph node downstaging (10.8% vs. 2.9%), but no patients achieved complete pathological response. The number of patients achieving major pathological response with erlotinib was limited but still more than chemotherapy (10.7% vs. 0%). The investigators are awaiting an overall survival rate.

Erlotinib showed similar adverse events to previous trials, most commonly, rash, diarrhea, cough, and oral ulcers, compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with GI issues, hematologic disturbances, and fatigue.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In response to these findings, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, invited discussant and deputy director of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, first discussed relevant efficacy measures. “The best predictor of long-term outcomes in these patients is nodal downstaging,” Dr. Ramalingam said. In previous studies, “patients who had clearance of the nodes had the best outcomes, and that continues to be an important prognostic marker.”

While major pathological response is valuable, and previous studies have revealed prognostic value, evidence is too limited to suggest that this is equivalent with cure, and it should not be considered as significant as complete pathological response, he said.

Considering that “only 11% of the patients” treated with erlotinib had nodal downstaging and/or major pathological response, and none achieved complete pathological response, Dr. Ramalingam suggested that the results were modest at best.

“While erlotinib seems to be doing better than chemo, I feel that the chemo group here is underperforming, compared to historical controls,” Dr. Ramalingam said, noting higher benchmark objective response rates (61% vs. 34%) and complete pathological response rates (4% vs. 0%).

Instead of focusing on neoadjuvant studies, Dr. Ramalingam suggested that ongoing adjuvant trials (ALCHEMIST and ADAURA) hold more promise and are more likely to serve as inroads for TKIs like erlotinib.

“Adjuvant care has withstood the test of time,” Dr. Ramalingam said. “Neoadjuvant EGFR-TKI in N2 disease I don’t think is ready for center stage.”

CTONG 1103 was sponsored by CTONG and Roche. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and others. Dr. Ramalingam reported compensation from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Loxo Oncology, and others.

MUNICH – Neoadjuvant erlotinib for patients with stage IIIA (N2) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increased progression-free survival (PFS), compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin, according to results from the recent CTONG 1103 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Despite beating chemotherapy, erlotinib, an epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), fell short of benchmarks set by adjuvant therapy, so it is unlikely that neoadjuvant erlotinib will see clinical use anytime soon.

Lead author Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, PhD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute and Guangdong General Hospital in Guangzhou, China, presenting at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, said that the recent findings support further investigation into biomarker-guided neoadjuvant therapy for stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC, as identifying patient subgroups could potentially improve outcomes.

Principal investigator Yi-Long Wu, MD, described the impetus for CTONG 1103 in an interview. “Recently, the CTONG 1104 trial showed for the first time that adjuvant EGFR-TKI gefitinib could improve disease-free survival ... compared to adjuvant chemotherapy ... in N1N2-resected NSCLC. This raises the possibility that EGFR-TKIs may play a beneficial role in the neoadjuvant setting for this subgroup,” he said.

CTONG 1103 is an ongoing, phase 2, open-label trial. Out of 386 patients screened, 72 were enrolled based on treatment naivety and EGFR mutation positivity (exon 19 or 21). Following randomization, patients received either erlotinib 150 mg daily for 42 days or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m² (days 1 and 8) and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (day 1) every 3 weeks for two cycles. After surgery, patients in the erlotinib group continued therapy for 1 year, while patients in the chemotherapy cohort received two more cycles of treatment.

The primary endpoint was objective response rate, and secondary endpoints included PFS, pathological lymph node downstaging, overall survival, safety measures, and complete pathological response. The investigators also highlighted major pathological response (less than 10% viable cancer cells after preoperative therapy).

The results showed that about half of the patients receiving erlotinib had an objective response (54.1%), compared with approximately one-third in the chemotherapy group (34.3%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .092). Erlotinib also provided a median PFS nearly twice that of chemotherapy (21.5 months vs. 11.9 months; P = .003) and more frequent lymph node downstaging (10.8% vs. 2.9%), but no patients achieved complete pathological response. The number of patients achieving major pathological response with erlotinib was limited but still more than chemotherapy (10.7% vs. 0%). The investigators are awaiting an overall survival rate.

Erlotinib showed similar adverse events to previous trials, most commonly, rash, diarrhea, cough, and oral ulcers, compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with GI issues, hematologic disturbances, and fatigue.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In response to these findings, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, invited discussant and deputy director of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, first discussed relevant efficacy measures. “The best predictor of long-term outcomes in these patients is nodal downstaging,” Dr. Ramalingam said. In previous studies, “patients who had clearance of the nodes had the best outcomes, and that continues to be an important prognostic marker.”

While major pathological response is valuable, and previous studies have revealed prognostic value, evidence is too limited to suggest that this is equivalent with cure, and it should not be considered as significant as complete pathological response, he said.

Considering that “only 11% of the patients” treated with erlotinib had nodal downstaging and/or major pathological response, and none achieved complete pathological response, Dr. Ramalingam suggested that the results were modest at best.

“While erlotinib seems to be doing better than chemo, I feel that the chemo group here is underperforming, compared to historical controls,” Dr. Ramalingam said, noting higher benchmark objective response rates (61% vs. 34%) and complete pathological response rates (4% vs. 0%).

Instead of focusing on neoadjuvant studies, Dr. Ramalingam suggested that ongoing adjuvant trials (ALCHEMIST and ADAURA) hold more promise and are more likely to serve as inroads for TKIs like erlotinib.

“Adjuvant care has withstood the test of time,” Dr. Ramalingam said. “Neoadjuvant EGFR-TKI in N2 disease I don’t think is ready for center stage.”

CTONG 1103 was sponsored by CTONG and Roche. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and others. Dr. Ramalingam reported compensation from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Loxo Oncology, and others.

MUNICH – Neoadjuvant erlotinib for patients with stage IIIA (N2) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increased progression-free survival (PFS), compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin, according to results from the recent CTONG 1103 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Despite beating chemotherapy, erlotinib, an epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR)–mutant tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), fell short of benchmarks set by adjuvant therapy, so it is unlikely that neoadjuvant erlotinib will see clinical use anytime soon.

Lead author Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, PhD, of Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute and Guangdong General Hospital in Guangzhou, China, presenting at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress, said that the recent findings support further investigation into biomarker-guided neoadjuvant therapy for stage IIIA (N2) NSCLC, as identifying patient subgroups could potentially improve outcomes.

Principal investigator Yi-Long Wu, MD, described the impetus for CTONG 1103 in an interview. “Recently, the CTONG 1104 trial showed for the first time that adjuvant EGFR-TKI gefitinib could improve disease-free survival ... compared to adjuvant chemotherapy ... in N1N2-resected NSCLC. This raises the possibility that EGFR-TKIs may play a beneficial role in the neoadjuvant setting for this subgroup,” he said.

CTONG 1103 is an ongoing, phase 2, open-label trial. Out of 386 patients screened, 72 were enrolled based on treatment naivety and EGFR mutation positivity (exon 19 or 21). Following randomization, patients received either erlotinib 150 mg daily for 42 days or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m² (days 1 and 8) and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (day 1) every 3 weeks for two cycles. After surgery, patients in the erlotinib group continued therapy for 1 year, while patients in the chemotherapy cohort received two more cycles of treatment.

The primary endpoint was objective response rate, and secondary endpoints included PFS, pathological lymph node downstaging, overall survival, safety measures, and complete pathological response. The investigators also highlighted major pathological response (less than 10% viable cancer cells after preoperative therapy).

The results showed that about half of the patients receiving erlotinib had an objective response (54.1%), compared with approximately one-third in the chemotherapy group (34.3%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = .092). Erlotinib also provided a median PFS nearly twice that of chemotherapy (21.5 months vs. 11.9 months; P = .003) and more frequent lymph node downstaging (10.8% vs. 2.9%), but no patients achieved complete pathological response. The number of patients achieving major pathological response with erlotinib was limited but still more than chemotherapy (10.7% vs. 0%). The investigators are awaiting an overall survival rate.

Erlotinib showed similar adverse events to previous trials, most commonly, rash, diarrhea, cough, and oral ulcers, compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with GI issues, hematologic disturbances, and fatigue.

Will Pass/MDedge News

In response to these findings, Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, invited discussant and deputy director of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, first discussed relevant efficacy measures. “The best predictor of long-term outcomes in these patients is nodal downstaging,” Dr. Ramalingam said. In previous studies, “patients who had clearance of the nodes had the best outcomes, and that continues to be an important prognostic marker.”

While major pathological response is valuable, and previous studies have revealed prognostic value, evidence is too limited to suggest that this is equivalent with cure, and it should not be considered as significant as complete pathological response, he said.

Considering that “only 11% of the patients” treated with erlotinib had nodal downstaging and/or major pathological response, and none achieved complete pathological response, Dr. Ramalingam suggested that the results were modest at best.

“While erlotinib seems to be doing better than chemo, I feel that the chemo group here is underperforming, compared to historical controls,” Dr. Ramalingam said, noting higher benchmark objective response rates (61% vs. 34%) and complete pathological response rates (4% vs. 0%).

Instead of focusing on neoadjuvant studies, Dr. Ramalingam suggested that ongoing adjuvant trials (ALCHEMIST and ADAURA) hold more promise and are more likely to serve as inroads for TKIs like erlotinib.

“Adjuvant care has withstood the test of time,” Dr. Ramalingam said. “Neoadjuvant EGFR-TKI in N2 disease I don’t think is ready for center stage.”

CTONG 1103 was sponsored by CTONG and Roche. The authors reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, and others. Dr. Ramalingam reported compensation from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Loxo Oncology, and others.

TORONTO – Concurrent atezolizumab immunotherapy and chemoradiation followed by atezolizumab consolidation and maintenance was safe and showed promising efficacy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) in the phase 2 DETERRED trial.

In part 1 of the single-institution study, 10 patients underwent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with low-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by high-dose consolidation chemotherapy plus atezolizumab and atezolizumab maintenance for 1 year. Six patients in this group (60%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). In part 2 of the study, 30 patients received concurrent atezolizumab and CRT followed by the same consolidation and maintenance used in part 1, and 17 (57%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Steven H. Lin, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Grade 3 or higher AEs were associated with atezolizumab in 30% and 23% of patients in part 1 and part 2, respectively. In part 1 these included dyspnea, arthralgia, and a grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula, and in part 2 included diarrhea, pneumonitis, nephritis, fatigue, respiratory failure, and heart failure in one patient each, and fatigue in three patients.

Grade 2 radiation pneumonitis was seen in two patients in each group, Dr. Lin of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Withdrawals caused by toxicity occurred in three and four patients in part 1 and 2, respectively.

Four patients in part 1 progressed with disease during atezolizumab maintenance and five have died from either tracheoesophageal fistula or grade 5 toxicity. In part 2, six have progressed and five have died, most caused by cancer progression, he said.

Preliminary survival data show a median progression-free survival of 20.1 months in part 1, whereas progression-free survival was not reached in part 2. Median overall survival at 1 year was 60% versus 77% in parts 1 and 2, respectively.

Consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab after CRT has been the standard of care for LA-NSCLC as established by the phase 3 PACIFIC trial, but evidence from that trial also suggested timing of the start of immunotherapy may be important.

“If patients were randomized less than 14 days after starting durvalumab there was a trend, or suggestion, that there was potentially an improvement in progression-free survival, compared with patients who started durvalumab outside of this window,” Dr. Lin said, noting that this is also supported by some preclinical evidence showing that the effectiveness of immunotherapies may be enhanced when combined with concurrent CRT.

The DETERRED trial evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of this approach followed by consolidation full-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel with atezolizumab and maintenance atezolizumab for up to 1 year for LA-NSCLC.

Patients, who had a median age of 66.5 years, were enrolled between February 2016 and April 2018; 15% had stage II disease, 50% had stage IIIA, and 35% had stage IIIB. Most (58%) had adenocarcinoma.

In part 1, standard chemoradiation including low-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel was given for 6 weeks. After CRT completion, patients were given consolidated high-dose chemotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel and intravenous atezolizumab was started at that point at a dose of 1,200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 1 year from the first dose. Part 2 was initiated based on the safety data in part 1 showing no concerning toxicities. In part 2, atezolizumab was given concurrently with CRT followed by the same consolidated regimen and maintenance.

“So the take-home message from this study is that the concurrent immunotherapy with atezolizumab and chemoradiation therapy can be administered safely,” Dr. Lin said, adding that grade 3+ pneumonitis is low and not significantly increased with the addition of concurrent atezolizumab with CRT.

Early efficacy analyses also show promising results, but further follow-up is needed, he said.

Trials now being planned include a phase 3 trial comparing the DETERRED and PACIFIC regimens, a phase 1 study comparing durvalumab with radiation to replace chemotherapy in programmed death–ligand 1–high locoregionally advanced NSCLC, and a phase 1 study of nivolumab with radiation to replace chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced NSCLC, he noted.

The DETERRED trial was supported by Genentech. Dr. Lin has received research grants from STCube Pharmaceuticals, Hitachi Chemical Diagnostics, Genentech, New River Labs, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, and is an advisory board member for AstraZeneca and New River Labs.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lin SH et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract OA01.06.

TORONTO – Concurrent atezolizumab immunotherapy and chemoradiation followed by atezolizumab consolidation and maintenance was safe and showed promising efficacy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) in the phase 2 DETERRED trial.

In part 1 of the single-institution study, 10 patients underwent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with low-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by high-dose consolidation chemotherapy plus atezolizumab and atezolizumab maintenance for 1 year. Six patients in this group (60%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). In part 2 of the study, 30 patients received concurrent atezolizumab and CRT followed by the same consolidation and maintenance used in part 1, and 17 (57%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Steven H. Lin, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Grade 3 or higher AEs were associated with atezolizumab in 30% and 23% of patients in part 1 and part 2, respectively. In part 1 these included dyspnea, arthralgia, and a grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula, and in part 2 included diarrhea, pneumonitis, nephritis, fatigue, respiratory failure, and heart failure in one patient each, and fatigue in three patients.

Grade 2 radiation pneumonitis was seen in two patients in each group, Dr. Lin of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Withdrawals caused by toxicity occurred in three and four patients in part 1 and 2, respectively.

Four patients in part 1 progressed with disease during atezolizumab maintenance and five have died from either tracheoesophageal fistula or grade 5 toxicity. In part 2, six have progressed and five have died, most caused by cancer progression, he said.

Preliminary survival data show a median progression-free survival of 20.1 months in part 1, whereas progression-free survival was not reached in part 2. Median overall survival at 1 year was 60% versus 77% in parts 1 and 2, respectively.

Consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab after CRT has been the standard of care for LA-NSCLC as established by the phase 3 PACIFIC trial, but evidence from that trial also suggested timing of the start of immunotherapy may be important.

“If patients were randomized less than 14 days after starting durvalumab there was a trend, or suggestion, that there was potentially an improvement in progression-free survival, compared with patients who started durvalumab outside of this window,” Dr. Lin said, noting that this is also supported by some preclinical evidence showing that the effectiveness of immunotherapies may be enhanced when combined with concurrent CRT.

The DETERRED trial evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of this approach followed by consolidation full-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel with atezolizumab and maintenance atezolizumab for up to 1 year for LA-NSCLC.

Patients, who had a median age of 66.5 years, were enrolled between February 2016 and April 2018; 15% had stage II disease, 50% had stage IIIA, and 35% had stage IIIB. Most (58%) had adenocarcinoma.

In part 1, standard chemoradiation including low-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel was given for 6 weeks. After CRT completion, patients were given consolidated high-dose chemotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel and intravenous atezolizumab was started at that point at a dose of 1,200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 1 year from the first dose. Part 2 was initiated based on the safety data in part 1 showing no concerning toxicities. In part 2, atezolizumab was given concurrently with CRT followed by the same consolidated regimen and maintenance.

“So the take-home message from this study is that the concurrent immunotherapy with atezolizumab and chemoradiation therapy can be administered safely,” Dr. Lin said, adding that grade 3+ pneumonitis is low and not significantly increased with the addition of concurrent atezolizumab with CRT.

Early efficacy analyses also show promising results, but further follow-up is needed, he said.

Trials now being planned include a phase 3 trial comparing the DETERRED and PACIFIC regimens, a phase 1 study comparing durvalumab with radiation to replace chemotherapy in programmed death–ligand 1–high locoregionally advanced NSCLC, and a phase 1 study of nivolumab with radiation to replace chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced NSCLC, he noted.

The DETERRED trial was supported by Genentech. Dr. Lin has received research grants from STCube Pharmaceuticals, Hitachi Chemical Diagnostics, Genentech, New River Labs, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, and is an advisory board member for AstraZeneca and New River Labs.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lin SH et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract OA01.06.

TORONTO – Concurrent atezolizumab immunotherapy and chemoradiation followed by atezolizumab consolidation and maintenance was safe and showed promising efficacy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) in the phase 2 DETERRED trial.

In part 1 of the single-institution study, 10 patients underwent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with low-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by high-dose consolidation chemotherapy plus atezolizumab and atezolizumab maintenance for 1 year. Six patients in this group (60%) experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs). In part 2 of the study, 30 patients received concurrent atezolizumab and CRT followed by the same consolidation and maintenance used in part 1, and 17 (57%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs, Steven H. Lin, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Grade 3 or higher AEs were associated with atezolizumab in 30% and 23% of patients in part 1 and part 2, respectively. In part 1 these included dyspnea, arthralgia, and a grade 5 tracheoesophageal fistula, and in part 2 included diarrhea, pneumonitis, nephritis, fatigue, respiratory failure, and heart failure in one patient each, and fatigue in three patients.

Grade 2 radiation pneumonitis was seen in two patients in each group, Dr. Lin of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Withdrawals caused by toxicity occurred in three and four patients in part 1 and 2, respectively.

Four patients in part 1 progressed with disease during atezolizumab maintenance and five have died from either tracheoesophageal fistula or grade 5 toxicity. In part 2, six have progressed and five have died, most caused by cancer progression, he said.

Preliminary survival data show a median progression-free survival of 20.1 months in part 1, whereas progression-free survival was not reached in part 2. Median overall survival at 1 year was 60% versus 77% in parts 1 and 2, respectively.

Consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab after CRT has been the standard of care for LA-NSCLC as established by the phase 3 PACIFIC trial, but evidence from that trial also suggested timing of the start of immunotherapy may be important.

“If patients were randomized less than 14 days after starting durvalumab there was a trend, or suggestion, that there was potentially an improvement in progression-free survival, compared with patients who started durvalumab outside of this window,” Dr. Lin said, noting that this is also supported by some preclinical evidence showing that the effectiveness of immunotherapies may be enhanced when combined with concurrent CRT.

The DETERRED trial evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of this approach followed by consolidation full-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel with atezolizumab and maintenance atezolizumab for up to 1 year for LA-NSCLC.

Patients, who had a median age of 66.5 years, were enrolled between February 2016 and April 2018; 15% had stage II disease, 50% had stage IIIA, and 35% had stage IIIB. Most (58%) had adenocarcinoma.

In part 1, standard chemoradiation including low-dose carboplatin/paclitaxel was given for 6 weeks. After CRT completion, patients were given consolidated high-dose chemotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel and intravenous atezolizumab was started at that point at a dose of 1,200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 1 year from the first dose. Part 2 was initiated based on the safety data in part 1 showing no concerning toxicities. In part 2, atezolizumab was given concurrently with CRT followed by the same consolidated regimen and maintenance.

“So the take-home message from this study is that the concurrent immunotherapy with atezolizumab and chemoradiation therapy can be administered safely,” Dr. Lin said, adding that grade 3+ pneumonitis is low and not significantly increased with the addition of concurrent atezolizumab with CRT.

Early efficacy analyses also show promising results, but further follow-up is needed, he said.

Trials now being planned include a phase 3 trial comparing the DETERRED and PACIFIC regimens, a phase 1 study comparing durvalumab with radiation to replace chemotherapy in programmed death–ligand 1–high locoregionally advanced NSCLC, and a phase 1 study of nivolumab with radiation to replace chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced NSCLC, he noted.

The DETERRED trial was supported by Genentech. Dr. Lin has received research grants from STCube Pharmaceuticals, Hitachi Chemical Diagnostics, Genentech, New River Labs, and BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, and is an advisory board member for AstraZeneca and New River Labs.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Lin SH et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract OA01.06.

TORONTO – Brigatinib proved superior to crizotinib for achieving progression-free survival in patients with inhibitor-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive non–small cell lung cancer in the first interim results from the multicenter, open-label, phase 3 ALTA-1L trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

In fact, the primary endpoint of the study – blinded independent review committee–assessed progression-free survival (PFS) – was met at this first analysis. The next-generation ALK inhibitor brigatinib reduced the chance of progression or death by 51% as compared with crizotinib – the current first-line standard of care in this population, D. Ross Camidge, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“At a median follow-up of 9-11 months, 26% [of 137 patients] on the brigatinib arm and 46% [of 138 patients] on the crizotinib arm had experienced a PFS event. Median PFS was not reached for the brigatinib arm and was 9.8 months for the crizotinib arm; the hazard ratio for progression or death was 0.49 and highly statistically significant,” said Dr. Camidge, director of thoracic oncology and the Joyce Zeff Chair in Lung Cancer Research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The 12-month PFS rate estimate was 67% for brigatinib and 43% for crizotinib, and the investigator-assessed hazard ratio for PFS was 0.45. Overall survival data are immature, Dr. Camidge added, noting that the PFS hazard ratios for those with versus those without prior chemotherapy were 0.35 and 0.55, respectively.

“PFS consistently favored brigatinib across all other subgroups,” he said. “Although the confidence intervals overlap, the effect size appears greater among those with baseline [CNS] disease than among those without [HR, 0.2 vs. 0.72].”

Data suggest that CNS progression among those with CNS disease at baseline tends to be an earlier event than either extra-CNS progression in general or CNS progression in those without baseline CNS disease. “Consequently, this first interim analysis may be preferentially emphasizing drug efficacy differences within the subgroup in whom the earlier progression events are occurring,” Dr. Camidge said.

As for overall objective responses, the rates were numerically higher with brigatinib versus crizotinib (70% vs. 60%), but were not statistically different in the two groups. “However, the median duration of confirmed responses was not reached for brigatinib and [was] 11.1 months with crizotinib, with the 12-month [probability] of sustained response being 75% for brigatinib and 41% for crizotinib,” he added.

Further, among those with measurable CNS lesions, brigatinib demonstrated a significantly higher intracranial response rate of 78% versus 29% (odds ratio, 10.42), and when those with nonmeasurable CNS disease were included in the intracranial response assessment, the odds ratio was 13.

Median intracranial PFS among those with CNS involvement at baseline was not reached in the brigatinib arm versus 5.6 months with crizotinib, for a highly statistically significant hazard ratio of 0.27. “Which, given that the median PFS for crizotinib in the overall population ... was 9.8 months, again emphasizes how CNS events in this subgroup tend to occur early,” he noted.

Study subjects had stage IIIB/IV ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on local ALK testing, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, no more than one prior systemic therapy for locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC, and no prior ALK inhibitor therapy, Dr. Camidge said, noting that asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases were allowed and crossover to the brigatinib arm was permitted for those with blinded independent review committee–assessed progression on crizotinib.

Those randomized to the brigatinib arm had a median age of 58 years and received 180 mg daily with a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg. Those randomized to the crizotinib group had a median age of 60 years and received 250 mg twice daily. Prior chemotherapy for advanced disease was received by 26% and 27% and brain metastasis was present in 29% and 30% of patients in the arms, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the brigatinib patients were laboratory abnormalities such as creatinine phosphokinase, lipase, and amylase increases, and the most common in the crizotinib group were gastrointestinal effects, transaminitis, bradycardia, peripheral edema, and vision disturbances.

Discontinuations caused by adverse events occurred in 12% and 9% of the brigatinib and crizotinib patients, respectively, he said. No clinical cases of pancreatitis occurred in either arm, there was no difference in the incidence of any grade myalgia or musculoskeletal pain between arms, and there was no grade 3 or greater myalgia or musculoskeletal pain reported.

Early-onset interstitial lung disease, however, “appears to be a unique side effect of brigatinib,” Dr. Camidge noted.

Although interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis occurred in both groups, onset at days 3-8 after treatment initiation occurred only with brigatinib, he said, adding that “it only occurred in 3% of cases – half the rate seen in the postcrizotinib setting.”

The PROFILE 1014 study established crizotinib as the standard first-line therapy for advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC, showing superior PFS versus pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy (HR, 0.45), but median PFS with crizotinib in that trial was only 10.9 months, Dr. Camidge said.

The next-generation ALK inhibitor brigatinib, however, has demonstrated broad preclinical activity against ALK resistance mutations, has excellent CNS penetration, and is the only ALK inhibitor with marked activity against multiple epidermal growth factor receptor–mutant cell lines, he said. “It has already shown significant activity both within the CNS and extracranially in the postcrizotinib setting, where it has consistently demonstrated the longest reported median PFS [up to 16.7 months] of any licensed or experimental ALK inhibitor.”

The ALTA-1L study provides a head-to-head comparison of brigatinib and crizotinib in a real-world setting, and the findings demonstrate that “brigatinib represents a promising new treatment for inhibitor-naive, ALK-rearranged NSCLC,” he said.

In a press statement, Dr. Camidge further stated that, based on these findings, brigatinib is set to become a first-line treatment option for ALK-positive lung cancer, adding that, “even with only 9-11 months of follow-up, the efficacy of brigatinib is clearly superior to crizotinib. A lot of the initial difference is driven by an effect on brain metastases, which tend to be an earlier progression event. However, once differences in control of disease outside the brain have time to manifest, it is possible the PFS improvement may increase.”

Both Dr. Camidge and invited discussant Fiona Blackhall, PhD, noted that the tolerability of brigatinib may be “even better in the real world,” as most of the 29% of patients on the brigatinib arm with adverse event–related dose reductions had “paper toxicities” for which the clinical impact is not well understood.

The rate of dose reductions for adverse events with brigatinib was higher in ALTA-1L than that seen in earlier studies of the second-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib, said Dr. Blackhall, professor and chair in thoracic oncology at the University of Manchester (England).

“We need to be sure that these dose reductions are appropriate and not potentially compromising efficacy,” she added.

Dr. Blackhall also suggested that sequential use of crizotinib and other ALK inhibitors like brigatinib should be evaluated and that the potential impact of ALK inhibitor selection “on the spectrum and type of resistance mutations and mechanisms” should be considered.

“Brigatinib is a new first-line treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer. ... But in the absence of direct comparison of next-generation ALK inhibitors, it is going to take some time before we can determine whether there is indeed – if there ever will be – a ‘best’ ALK inhibitor for our patients,” she said.

Dr. Camidge has received honoraria from Arrys/Kyn, AstraZeneca, Biothera, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, Genoptix, Hansoh, Ignyta, Lycera, Mersana Therapeutics, Novartis, Orion, Revolution Medicines, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda, and has received research funding from ARIADTakeda. Dr. Blackhall reported research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has served has an advisory board member, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cell Medica, Medivation, Merck, Regeneron, Roche, and Takeda.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Camidge DR et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract PL02.03.

TORONTO – Brigatinib proved superior to crizotinib for achieving progression-free survival in patients with inhibitor-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive non–small cell lung cancer in the first interim results from the multicenter, open-label, phase 3 ALTA-1L trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

In fact, the primary endpoint of the study – blinded independent review committee–assessed progression-free survival (PFS) – was met at this first analysis. The next-generation ALK inhibitor brigatinib reduced the chance of progression or death by 51% as compared with crizotinib – the current first-line standard of care in this population, D. Ross Camidge, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“At a median follow-up of 9-11 months, 26% [of 137 patients] on the brigatinib arm and 46% [of 138 patients] on the crizotinib arm had experienced a PFS event. Median PFS was not reached for the brigatinib arm and was 9.8 months for the crizotinib arm; the hazard ratio for progression or death was 0.49 and highly statistically significant,” said Dr. Camidge, director of thoracic oncology and the Joyce Zeff Chair in Lung Cancer Research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The 12-month PFS rate estimate was 67% for brigatinib and 43% for crizotinib, and the investigator-assessed hazard ratio for PFS was 0.45. Overall survival data are immature, Dr. Camidge added, noting that the PFS hazard ratios for those with versus those without prior chemotherapy were 0.35 and 0.55, respectively.

“PFS consistently favored brigatinib across all other subgroups,” he said. “Although the confidence intervals overlap, the effect size appears greater among those with baseline [CNS] disease than among those without [HR, 0.2 vs. 0.72].”

Data suggest that CNS progression among those with CNS disease at baseline tends to be an earlier event than either extra-CNS progression in general or CNS progression in those without baseline CNS disease. “Consequently, this first interim analysis may be preferentially emphasizing drug efficacy differences within the subgroup in whom the earlier progression events are occurring,” Dr. Camidge said.

As for overall objective responses, the rates were numerically higher with brigatinib versus crizotinib (70% vs. 60%), but were not statistically different in the two groups. “However, the median duration of confirmed responses was not reached for brigatinib and [was] 11.1 months with crizotinib, with the 12-month [probability] of sustained response being 75% for brigatinib and 41% for crizotinib,” he added.

Further, among those with measurable CNS lesions, brigatinib demonstrated a significantly higher intracranial response rate of 78% versus 29% (odds ratio, 10.42), and when those with nonmeasurable CNS disease were included in the intracranial response assessment, the odds ratio was 13.

Median intracranial PFS among those with CNS involvement at baseline was not reached in the brigatinib arm versus 5.6 months with crizotinib, for a highly statistically significant hazard ratio of 0.27. “Which, given that the median PFS for crizotinib in the overall population ... was 9.8 months, again emphasizes how CNS events in this subgroup tend to occur early,” he noted.

Study subjects had stage IIIB/IV ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on local ALK testing, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, no more than one prior systemic therapy for locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC, and no prior ALK inhibitor therapy, Dr. Camidge said, noting that asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases were allowed and crossover to the brigatinib arm was permitted for those with blinded independent review committee–assessed progression on crizotinib.

Those randomized to the brigatinib arm had a median age of 58 years and received 180 mg daily with a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg. Those randomized to the crizotinib group had a median age of 60 years and received 250 mg twice daily. Prior chemotherapy for advanced disease was received by 26% and 27% and brain metastasis was present in 29% and 30% of patients in the arms, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the brigatinib patients were laboratory abnormalities such as creatinine phosphokinase, lipase, and amylase increases, and the most common in the crizotinib group were gastrointestinal effects, transaminitis, bradycardia, peripheral edema, and vision disturbances.

Discontinuations caused by adverse events occurred in 12% and 9% of the brigatinib and crizotinib patients, respectively, he said. No clinical cases of pancreatitis occurred in either arm, there was no difference in the incidence of any grade myalgia or musculoskeletal pain between arms, and there was no grade 3 or greater myalgia or musculoskeletal pain reported.

Early-onset interstitial lung disease, however, “appears to be a unique side effect of brigatinib,” Dr. Camidge noted.

Although interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis occurred in both groups, onset at days 3-8 after treatment initiation occurred only with brigatinib, he said, adding that “it only occurred in 3% of cases – half the rate seen in the postcrizotinib setting.”

The PROFILE 1014 study established crizotinib as the standard first-line therapy for advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC, showing superior PFS versus pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy (HR, 0.45), but median PFS with crizotinib in that trial was only 10.9 months, Dr. Camidge said.

The next-generation ALK inhibitor brigatinib, however, has demonstrated broad preclinical activity against ALK resistance mutations, has excellent CNS penetration, and is the only ALK inhibitor with marked activity against multiple epidermal growth factor receptor–mutant cell lines, he said. “It has already shown significant activity both within the CNS and extracranially in the postcrizotinib setting, where it has consistently demonstrated the longest reported median PFS [up to 16.7 months] of any licensed or experimental ALK inhibitor.”

The ALTA-1L study provides a head-to-head comparison of brigatinib and crizotinib in a real-world setting, and the findings demonstrate that “brigatinib represents a promising new treatment for inhibitor-naive, ALK-rearranged NSCLC,” he said.

In a press statement, Dr. Camidge further stated that, based on these findings, brigatinib is set to become a first-line treatment option for ALK-positive lung cancer, adding that, “even with only 9-11 months of follow-up, the efficacy of brigatinib is clearly superior to crizotinib. A lot of the initial difference is driven by an effect on brain metastases, which tend to be an earlier progression event. However, once differences in control of disease outside the brain have time to manifest, it is possible the PFS improvement may increase.”

Both Dr. Camidge and invited discussant Fiona Blackhall, PhD, noted that the tolerability of brigatinib may be “even better in the real world,” as most of the 29% of patients on the brigatinib arm with adverse event–related dose reductions had “paper toxicities” for which the clinical impact is not well understood.

The rate of dose reductions for adverse events with brigatinib was higher in ALTA-1L than that seen in earlier studies of the second-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib, said Dr. Blackhall, professor and chair in thoracic oncology at the University of Manchester (England).

“We need to be sure that these dose reductions are appropriate and not potentially compromising efficacy,” she added.

Dr. Blackhall also suggested that sequential use of crizotinib and other ALK inhibitors like brigatinib should be evaluated and that the potential impact of ALK inhibitor selection “on the spectrum and type of resistance mutations and mechanisms” should be considered.

“Brigatinib is a new first-line treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer. ... But in the absence of direct comparison of next-generation ALK inhibitors, it is going to take some time before we can determine whether there is indeed – if there ever will be – a ‘best’ ALK inhibitor for our patients,” she said.

Dr. Camidge has received honoraria from Arrys/Kyn, AstraZeneca, Biothera, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, Genoptix, Hansoh, Ignyta, Lycera, Mersana Therapeutics, Novartis, Orion, Revolution Medicines, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda, and has received research funding from ARIADTakeda. Dr. Blackhall reported research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has served has an advisory board member, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cell Medica, Medivation, Merck, Regeneron, Roche, and Takeda.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Camidge DR et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract PL02.03.

TORONTO – Brigatinib proved superior to crizotinib for achieving progression-free survival in patients with inhibitor-naive anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive non–small cell lung cancer in the first interim results from the multicenter, open-label, phase 3 ALTA-1L trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

In fact, the primary endpoint of the study – blinded independent review committee–assessed progression-free survival (PFS) – was met at this first analysis. The next-generation ALK inhibitor brigatinib reduced the chance of progression or death by 51% as compared with crizotinib – the current first-line standard of care in this population, D. Ross Camidge, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“At a median follow-up of 9-11 months, 26% [of 137 patients] on the brigatinib arm and 46% [of 138 patients] on the crizotinib arm had experienced a PFS event. Median PFS was not reached for the brigatinib arm and was 9.8 months for the crizotinib arm; the hazard ratio for progression or death was 0.49 and highly statistically significant,” said Dr. Camidge, director of thoracic oncology and the Joyce Zeff Chair in Lung Cancer Research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, at the meeting sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The 12-month PFS rate estimate was 67% for brigatinib and 43% for crizotinib, and the investigator-assessed hazard ratio for PFS was 0.45. Overall survival data are immature, Dr. Camidge added, noting that the PFS hazard ratios for those with versus those without prior chemotherapy were 0.35 and 0.55, respectively.

“PFS consistently favored brigatinib across all other subgroups,” he said. “Although the confidence intervals overlap, the effect size appears greater among those with baseline [CNS] disease than among those without [HR, 0.2 vs. 0.72].”

Data suggest that CNS progression among those with CNS disease at baseline tends to be an earlier event than either extra-CNS progression in general or CNS progression in those without baseline CNS disease. “Consequently, this first interim analysis may be preferentially emphasizing drug efficacy differences within the subgroup in whom the earlier progression events are occurring,” Dr. Camidge said.

As for overall objective responses, the rates were numerically higher with brigatinib versus crizotinib (70% vs. 60%), but were not statistically different in the two groups. “However, the median duration of confirmed responses was not reached for brigatinib and [was] 11.1 months with crizotinib, with the 12-month [probability] of sustained response being 75% for brigatinib and 41% for crizotinib,” he added.

Further, among those with measurable CNS lesions, brigatinib demonstrated a significantly higher intracranial response rate of 78% versus 29% (odds ratio, 10.42), and when those with nonmeasurable CNS disease were included in the intracranial response assessment, the odds ratio was 13.

Median intracranial PFS among those with CNS involvement at baseline was not reached in the brigatinib arm versus 5.6 months with crizotinib, for a highly statistically significant hazard ratio of 0.27. “Which, given that the median PFS for crizotinib in the overall population ... was 9.8 months, again emphasizes how CNS events in this subgroup tend to occur early,” he noted.

Study subjects had stage IIIB/IV ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on local ALK testing, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, no more than one prior systemic therapy for locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC, and no prior ALK inhibitor therapy, Dr. Camidge said, noting that asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases were allowed and crossover to the brigatinib arm was permitted for those with blinded independent review committee–assessed progression on crizotinib.

Those randomized to the brigatinib arm had a median age of 58 years and received 180 mg daily with a 7-day lead-in at 90 mg. Those randomized to the crizotinib group had a median age of 60 years and received 250 mg twice daily. Prior chemotherapy for advanced disease was received by 26% and 27% and brain metastasis was present in 29% and 30% of patients in the arms, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in the brigatinib patients were laboratory abnormalities such as creatinine phosphokinase, lipase, and amylase increases, and the most common in the crizotinib group were gastrointestinal effects, transaminitis, bradycardia, peripheral edema, and vision disturbances.

Discontinuations caused by adverse events occurred in 12% and 9% of the brigatinib and crizotinib patients, respectively, he said. No clinical cases of pancreatitis occurred in either arm, there was no difference in the incidence of any grade myalgia or musculoskeletal pain between arms, and there was no grade 3 or greater myalgia or musculoskeletal pain reported.

Early-onset interstitial lung disease, however, “appears to be a unique side effect of brigatinib,” Dr. Camidge noted.

Although interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis occurred in both groups, onset at days 3-8 after treatment initiation occurred only with brigatinib, he said, adding that “it only occurred in 3% of cases – half the rate seen in the postcrizotinib setting.”

The PROFILE 1014 study established crizotinib as the standard first-line therapy for advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC, showing superior PFS versus pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy (HR, 0.45), but median PFS with crizotinib in that trial was only 10.9 months, Dr. Camidge said.

The next-generation ALK inhibitor brigatinib, however, has demonstrated broad preclinical activity against ALK resistance mutations, has excellent CNS penetration, and is the only ALK inhibitor with marked activity against multiple epidermal growth factor receptor–mutant cell lines, he said. “It has already shown significant activity both within the CNS and extracranially in the postcrizotinib setting, where it has consistently demonstrated the longest reported median PFS [up to 16.7 months] of any licensed or experimental ALK inhibitor.”

The ALTA-1L study provides a head-to-head comparison of brigatinib and crizotinib in a real-world setting, and the findings demonstrate that “brigatinib represents a promising new treatment for inhibitor-naive, ALK-rearranged NSCLC,” he said.

In a press statement, Dr. Camidge further stated that, based on these findings, brigatinib is set to become a first-line treatment option for ALK-positive lung cancer, adding that, “even with only 9-11 months of follow-up, the efficacy of brigatinib is clearly superior to crizotinib. A lot of the initial difference is driven by an effect on brain metastases, which tend to be an earlier progression event. However, once differences in control of disease outside the brain have time to manifest, it is possible the PFS improvement may increase.”

Both Dr. Camidge and invited discussant Fiona Blackhall, PhD, noted that the tolerability of brigatinib may be “even better in the real world,” as most of the 29% of patients on the brigatinib arm with adverse event–related dose reductions had “paper toxicities” for which the clinical impact is not well understood.

The rate of dose reductions for adverse events with brigatinib was higher in ALTA-1L than that seen in earlier studies of the second-generation ALK inhibitor alectinib, said Dr. Blackhall, professor and chair in thoracic oncology at the University of Manchester (England).

“We need to be sure that these dose reductions are appropriate and not potentially compromising efficacy,” she added.

Dr. Blackhall also suggested that sequential use of crizotinib and other ALK inhibitors like brigatinib should be evaluated and that the potential impact of ALK inhibitor selection “on the spectrum and type of resistance mutations and mechanisms” should be considered.

“Brigatinib is a new first-line treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer. ... But in the absence of direct comparison of next-generation ALK inhibitors, it is going to take some time before we can determine whether there is indeed – if there ever will be – a ‘best’ ALK inhibitor for our patients,” she said.

Dr. Camidge has received honoraria from Arrys/Kyn, AstraZeneca, Biothera, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, G1 Therapeutics, Genoptix, Hansoh, Ignyta, Lycera, Mersana Therapeutics, Novartis, Orion, Revolution Medicines, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda, and has received research funding from ARIADTakeda. Dr. Blackhall reported research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has served has an advisory board member, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cell Medica, Medivation, Merck, Regeneron, Roche, and Takeda.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Camidge DR et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract PL02.03.

Epacadostat, a highly selective oral inhibitor of the indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) enzyme, was well tolerated when combined with pembrolizumab and demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in multiple types of advanced solid tumors, according to the results of a phase l/ll trial.

Tumors may evade immunosurveillance through upregulation of the IDO1 enzyme, and thus there is a great interest in developing combination therapies that can target various immune evasion pathways to improve therapeutic response and outcomes. In this study, the authors evaluated the investigational agent epacadostat combined with pembrolizumab in 62 patients with advanced solid tumors.

In the dose escalation phase, patents received increasing doses of oral epacadostat (25, 50, 100, or 300 mg) twice per day plus intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 200 mg every 3 weeks. During the safety expansion, epacadostat at 50, 100, or 300 mg was given twice per day, plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose of epacadostat in combination with pembrolizumab was not reached.

Objective responses (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) occurred in 12 (55%) of 22 patients with melanoma and in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, endometrial adenocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, reported Tara C. Mitchell, MD, of the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and her colleagues. The report is in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors observed that there was antitumor activity at all epacadostat doses and in several tumor types. A complete response was achieved by 8 patients (treatment naive melanoma [5 patients] and previously treated for advanced/ metastatic melanoma, endometrial adenocarcinoma [EA], or urothelial carcinoma [UC] [1 patient each]), while 17 patients achieved a partial response (treatment-naive melanoma [6 patients], non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] [5 patients], renal cell carcinoma [RCC] and UC [2 patients each], and EA and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [1 patient each]).

Most patients (n = 52, 84%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), the most frequently observed being fatigue (36%), rash (36%), arthralgia (24%), pruritus (23%), and nausea (21%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 24% of patients, and 7 patients (11%) discontinued their treatment because of TRAEs. There were no deaths associated with TRAEs.

“The safety profile observed with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab compares favorably with studies of other combination immunotherapies,” wrote Dr. Mitchell and her colleagues. “Although not powered to evaluate efficacy, the phase I portion of this study showed that epacadostat plus pembrolizumab had encouraging and durable antitumor activity,” they said.

SOURCE: Mitchell TC et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9602.

Epacadostat, a highly selective oral inhibitor of the indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) enzyme, was well tolerated when combined with pembrolizumab and demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in multiple types of advanced solid tumors, according to the results of a phase l/ll trial.

Tumors may evade immunosurveillance through upregulation of the IDO1 enzyme, and thus there is a great interest in developing combination therapies that can target various immune evasion pathways to improve therapeutic response and outcomes. In this study, the authors evaluated the investigational agent epacadostat combined with pembrolizumab in 62 patients with advanced solid tumors.

In the dose escalation phase, patents received increasing doses of oral epacadostat (25, 50, 100, or 300 mg) twice per day plus intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 200 mg every 3 weeks. During the safety expansion, epacadostat at 50, 100, or 300 mg was given twice per day, plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose of epacadostat in combination with pembrolizumab was not reached.

Objective responses (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) occurred in 12 (55%) of 22 patients with melanoma and in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, endometrial adenocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, reported Tara C. Mitchell, MD, of the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and her colleagues. The report is in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors observed that there was antitumor activity at all epacadostat doses and in several tumor types. A complete response was achieved by 8 patients (treatment naive melanoma [5 patients] and previously treated for advanced/ metastatic melanoma, endometrial adenocarcinoma [EA], or urothelial carcinoma [UC] [1 patient each]), while 17 patients achieved a partial response (treatment-naive melanoma [6 patients], non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] [5 patients], renal cell carcinoma [RCC] and UC [2 patients each], and EA and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [1 patient each]).

Most patients (n = 52, 84%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), the most frequently observed being fatigue (36%), rash (36%), arthralgia (24%), pruritus (23%), and nausea (21%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 24% of patients, and 7 patients (11%) discontinued their treatment because of TRAEs. There were no deaths associated with TRAEs.

“The safety profile observed with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab compares favorably with studies of other combination immunotherapies,” wrote Dr. Mitchell and her colleagues. “Although not powered to evaluate efficacy, the phase I portion of this study showed that epacadostat plus pembrolizumab had encouraging and durable antitumor activity,” they said.

SOURCE: Mitchell TC et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9602.

Epacadostat, a highly selective oral inhibitor of the indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) enzyme, was well tolerated when combined with pembrolizumab and demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in multiple types of advanced solid tumors, according to the results of a phase l/ll trial.

Tumors may evade immunosurveillance through upregulation of the IDO1 enzyme, and thus there is a great interest in developing combination therapies that can target various immune evasion pathways to improve therapeutic response and outcomes. In this study, the authors evaluated the investigational agent epacadostat combined with pembrolizumab in 62 patients with advanced solid tumors.

In the dose escalation phase, patents received increasing doses of oral epacadostat (25, 50, 100, or 300 mg) twice per day plus intravenous pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or 200 mg every 3 weeks. During the safety expansion, epacadostat at 50, 100, or 300 mg was given twice per day, plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The maximum tolerated dose of epacadostat in combination with pembrolizumab was not reached.

Objective responses (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1) occurred in 12 (55%) of 22 patients with melanoma and in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, endometrial adenocarcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, reported Tara C. Mitchell, MD, of the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and her colleagues. The report is in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The authors observed that there was antitumor activity at all epacadostat doses and in several tumor types. A complete response was achieved by 8 patients (treatment naive melanoma [5 patients] and previously treated for advanced/ metastatic melanoma, endometrial adenocarcinoma [EA], or urothelial carcinoma [UC] [1 patient each]), while 17 patients achieved a partial response (treatment-naive melanoma [6 patients], non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] [5 patients], renal cell carcinoma [RCC] and UC [2 patients each], and EA and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck [1 patient each]).

Most patients (n = 52, 84%) experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), the most frequently observed being fatigue (36%), rash (36%), arthralgia (24%), pruritus (23%), and nausea (21%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 24% of patients, and 7 patients (11%) discontinued their treatment because of TRAEs. There were no deaths associated with TRAEs.

“The safety profile observed with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab compares favorably with studies of other combination immunotherapies,” wrote Dr. Mitchell and her colleagues. “Although not powered to evaluate efficacy, the phase I portion of this study showed that epacadostat plus pembrolizumab had encouraging and durable antitumor activity,” they said.

SOURCE: Mitchell TC et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9602.

TORONTO – Adding the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab to standard first-line chemotherapy and maintenance therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), in the randomized, open-label IMpower132 trial.

At a minimum follow-up of 11.7 months (median, 14.8 months), investigator-assessed median PFS in 292 patients enrolled in the atezolizumab arm of the global study was 7.6 months, compared with 5.2 months – a 40% reduction in risk of disease progression – in 286 patients who received only first-line carboplatin plus pemetrexed and pemetrexed maintenance therapy (hazard ratio, 0.60), Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“The landmark PFS at 12-months showed almost a doubling for the investigational arm [at] 33.7% vs. 17%,” said Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou, professor of medicine and chief of the section of thoracic medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “PFS benefit was seen across all key subgroups, [and was] especially pronounced for female patients (HR, 0.51), Asian patients (HR, 0.42), never-smokers (HR, 0.49), and patients who didn’t have liver metastases (HR, 0.56).”

PFS was also looked at – as an exploratory endpoint – by PD-L1 status in biomarker-evaluable patients, and “again, benefit was seen across all PD-L1-defined subgroups with a consistent trend for most benefit among the highest expressers,” she noted.

Median PFS was 10.8 months in 25 atezolizumab-treated patients with high PD-L1 expression, vs. 6.5 months in 20 control group patients with high PD-L1 expression; 6.2 vs. 5.7 months in 63 and 73 patients with low-PD-L1 expression in the groups, respectively; and 8.5 vs. 4.9 months in 88 and 75 PD-L1-negative patients in the groups, respectively, she reported at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Interim analyses also showed a numerically superior improvement in median and 12-month overall survival in the atezolizumab vs. control group (median, 18.1 vs. 13.6 months; HR, 0.813; P = .0797; 12-month, 59.6% vs. 55.4%), she said, adding that overall survival will be looked at again at the final analysis of the data, which is anticipated some time in the first half of 2019.

Study participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1. Those with tumors known to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase driver mutations were excluded, as were those with untreated central nervous system metastases, autoimmune disease, and prior exposure to immunotherapy.

All patients received four or six cycles of carboplatin at a dose of area under the curve 6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m² plus 500 mg/m² of pemetrexed every 3 weeks, and those in the experimental arm also received 1,200 mg of atezolizumab every 3 weeks. Maintenance therapy included pemetrexed alone in the control arm, and atezolizumab plus pemetrexed in the experimental arm.

Treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals emerged, Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said, noting that adverse events were similar in the groups, but more common in the atezolizumab-treated patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54% of patients receiving atezolizumab vs. 39% of those in the control group, and serious adverse events occurred in 33% vs. 16%.

“The findings from IMpower132 indicate that the addition of atezolizumab to a backbone of carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy provides better clinical efficacy than carboplatin and pemetrexed alone,” Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said in a press statement. “By inhibiting the interaction of PD-L1 with its receptors PD-1 and B7.1, atezolizumab restores tumor-specific T-cell immunity, offering a valuable treatment option that prolongs survival for patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC.”

IMpower132 is sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd. Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou has received research support from, and/or is an advisory board member for numerous companies including F. Hoffmann–La Roche.

SOURCE: Papadimitrakopoulou V et al. WCLC 2018 Abstract OA05.07.

TORONTO – Adding the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab to standard first-line chemotherapy and maintenance therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), in the randomized, open-label IMpower132 trial.

At a minimum follow-up of 11.7 months (median, 14.8 months), investigator-assessed median PFS in 292 patients enrolled in the atezolizumab arm of the global study was 7.6 months, compared with 5.2 months – a 40% reduction in risk of disease progression – in 286 patients who received only first-line carboplatin plus pemetrexed and pemetrexed maintenance therapy (hazard ratio, 0.60), Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“The landmark PFS at 12-months showed almost a doubling for the investigational arm [at] 33.7% vs. 17%,” said Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou, professor of medicine and chief of the section of thoracic medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “PFS benefit was seen across all key subgroups, [and was] especially pronounced for female patients (HR, 0.51), Asian patients (HR, 0.42), never-smokers (HR, 0.49), and patients who didn’t have liver metastases (HR, 0.56).”

PFS was also looked at – as an exploratory endpoint – by PD-L1 status in biomarker-evaluable patients, and “again, benefit was seen across all PD-L1-defined subgroups with a consistent trend for most benefit among the highest expressers,” she noted.

Median PFS was 10.8 months in 25 atezolizumab-treated patients with high PD-L1 expression, vs. 6.5 months in 20 control group patients with high PD-L1 expression; 6.2 vs. 5.7 months in 63 and 73 patients with low-PD-L1 expression in the groups, respectively; and 8.5 vs. 4.9 months in 88 and 75 PD-L1-negative patients in the groups, respectively, she reported at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Interim analyses also showed a numerically superior improvement in median and 12-month overall survival in the atezolizumab vs. control group (median, 18.1 vs. 13.6 months; HR, 0.813; P = .0797; 12-month, 59.6% vs. 55.4%), she said, adding that overall survival will be looked at again at the final analysis of the data, which is anticipated some time in the first half of 2019.

Study participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1. Those with tumors known to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase driver mutations were excluded, as were those with untreated central nervous system metastases, autoimmune disease, and prior exposure to immunotherapy.

All patients received four or six cycles of carboplatin at a dose of area under the curve 6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m² plus 500 mg/m² of pemetrexed every 3 weeks, and those in the experimental arm also received 1,200 mg of atezolizumab every 3 weeks. Maintenance therapy included pemetrexed alone in the control arm, and atezolizumab plus pemetrexed in the experimental arm.

Treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals emerged, Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said, noting that adverse events were similar in the groups, but more common in the atezolizumab-treated patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54% of patients receiving atezolizumab vs. 39% of those in the control group, and serious adverse events occurred in 33% vs. 16%.

“The findings from IMpower132 indicate that the addition of atezolizumab to a backbone of carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy provides better clinical efficacy than carboplatin and pemetrexed alone,” Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said in a press statement. “By inhibiting the interaction of PD-L1 with its receptors PD-1 and B7.1, atezolizumab restores tumor-specific T-cell immunity, offering a valuable treatment option that prolongs survival for patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC.”

IMpower132 is sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd. Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou has received research support from, and/or is an advisory board member for numerous companies including F. Hoffmann–La Roche.

SOURCE: Papadimitrakopoulou V et al. WCLC 2018 Abstract OA05.07.

TORONTO – Adding the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab to standard first-line chemotherapy and maintenance therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), in the randomized, open-label IMpower132 trial.

At a minimum follow-up of 11.7 months (median, 14.8 months), investigator-assessed median PFS in 292 patients enrolled in the atezolizumab arm of the global study was 7.6 months, compared with 5.2 months – a 40% reduction in risk of disease progression – in 286 patients who received only first-line carboplatin plus pemetrexed and pemetrexed maintenance therapy (hazard ratio, 0.60), Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

“The landmark PFS at 12-months showed almost a doubling for the investigational arm [at] 33.7% vs. 17%,” said Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou, professor of medicine and chief of the section of thoracic medical oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “PFS benefit was seen across all key subgroups, [and was] especially pronounced for female patients (HR, 0.51), Asian patients (HR, 0.42), never-smokers (HR, 0.49), and patients who didn’t have liver metastases (HR, 0.56).”

PFS was also looked at – as an exploratory endpoint – by PD-L1 status in biomarker-evaluable patients, and “again, benefit was seen across all PD-L1-defined subgroups with a consistent trend for most benefit among the highest expressers,” she noted.

Median PFS was 10.8 months in 25 atezolizumab-treated patients with high PD-L1 expression, vs. 6.5 months in 20 control group patients with high PD-L1 expression; 6.2 vs. 5.7 months in 63 and 73 patients with low-PD-L1 expression in the groups, respectively; and 8.5 vs. 4.9 months in 88 and 75 PD-L1-negative patients in the groups, respectively, she reported at the conference, which was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Interim analyses also showed a numerically superior improvement in median and 12-month overall survival in the atezolizumab vs. control group (median, 18.1 vs. 13.6 months; HR, 0.813; P = .0797; 12-month, 59.6% vs. 55.4%), she said, adding that overall survival will be looked at again at the final analysis of the data, which is anticipated some time in the first half of 2019.

Study participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1. Those with tumors known to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase driver mutations were excluded, as were those with untreated central nervous system metastases, autoimmune disease, and prior exposure to immunotherapy.

All patients received four or six cycles of carboplatin at a dose of area under the curve 6 mg/mL/min or cisplatin at a dose of 75 mg/m² plus 500 mg/m² of pemetrexed every 3 weeks, and those in the experimental arm also received 1,200 mg of atezolizumab every 3 weeks. Maintenance therapy included pemetrexed alone in the control arm, and atezolizumab plus pemetrexed in the experimental arm.

Treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals emerged, Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said, noting that adverse events were similar in the groups, but more common in the atezolizumab-treated patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 54% of patients receiving atezolizumab vs. 39% of those in the control group, and serious adverse events occurred in 33% vs. 16%.

“The findings from IMpower132 indicate that the addition of atezolizumab to a backbone of carboplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy provides better clinical efficacy than carboplatin and pemetrexed alone,” Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou said in a press statement. “By inhibiting the interaction of PD-L1 with its receptors PD-1 and B7.1, atezolizumab restores tumor-specific T-cell immunity, offering a valuable treatment option that prolongs survival for patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC.”

IMpower132 is sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd. Dr. Papadimitrakopoulou has received research support from, and/or is an advisory board member for numerous companies including F. Hoffmann–La Roche.

SOURCE: Papadimitrakopoulou V et al. WCLC 2018 Abstract OA05.07.

TORONTO – Adding the humanized monoclonal programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab to standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in the phase 1/3 IMpower133 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The combination may represent a new standard-of-care regimen for patients with untreated ES-SCLC, which is highly lethal – with 5-year survival of about 1%-3% – and represents about 13% of all lung cancers, Stephen V. Liu, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The median overall survival in 201 patients randomized to receive atezolizumab in addition to carboplatin and etoposide was 12.3 months, compared with 10.3 months in 202 patients who received placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide (hazard ratio, 0.7), Dr. Liu of Georgetown University, Washington, and a member of the trial steering committee said at the meeting, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“That translates to a 30% reduction in the risk of patient death,” he said at a press briefing during the conference. “Patients receiving atezolizumab had a much greater likelihood of being alive at 1 year, with a 1-year survival rate of 51.7% versus 38.2%.”

Median progression-free survival(PFS) also improved with atezolizumab (5.2 months vs. 4.3 months with placebo; HR, 0.77), as did 6-month PFS. At 12 months there was more than a doubling of PFS in the atezolizumab group (5.0% vs. 12.6%), he said.

Participants in the double-blind trial were treatment-naive all-comers with measurable ES-SCLC and good performance status. They received four 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve, 5 mg/mL per minute) on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide (100 mg/m²) on days 1-3 with either concurrent 1,200 mg of atezolizumab on day 1 or placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab or placebo until intolerable toxicity or disease progression.

The treatment benefits were seen across many patient subgroups and regardless of tumor mutational burden.

The atezolizumab safety profile was as expected with no new safety signals and did not compromise patients’ ability to complete four treatment cycles, Dr. Liu noted.

The findings are exciting in that they represent the first in decades to show a significant improvement in survival in patients with ES-SCLC, he said. Although most patients have an initial response to standard-of-care chemotherapy, that response isn’t durable. “As much as we expect a response, we also know that it’s transient; we expect a response, we expect relapse. There hasn’t been a change really in the past 20 years, at least, with this regimen that we’ve been using since the 1980s.”

That’s not for lack of trying, he added, noting that more than 40 phase 3 studies have looked at more than 60 different drugs since the 1970s and have “failed to move the needle.”

Immunotherapy, however, has dramatically improved the therapeutic landscape in non–small cell lung cancer, and preclinical data and clinical experience suggest “a possible synergy between checkpoint inhibition and chemotherapy,” which led to this global study, he explained.

“This is the first study in over 20 years to show a significant improvement in survival and progression-free survival in initial treatment of small cell lung cancer. The concurrent administration of atezolizumab with chemotherapy helped people live longer, compared to chemotherapy alone,” Dr. Liu concluded, adding in a press statement that “this is an exciting time in oncology, and we are thrilled to finally see real progress in the SCLC space.”

When questioned about the role of PD-L1 in this population and the possibility of identifying a subgroup in which this treatment may be more cost effective, he noted that tissue samples weren’t required at enrollment in this study, but were collected from some patients, and future analyses will assess those samples to try to determine if there are subsets of patients who derive particular benefit from immunotherapy in this setting.

“But today, in an all-comer population, this combination has improved survival,” he said.

IMpower133 was sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Liu is a speaker or advisory board member for Genentech, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Ignyta, and has received research or grant support from Genentech, Pfizer, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Esanex, Bayer, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Ignyta, Merck, Lycera, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Partners.

SOURCE: Liu SV et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract PL02.07.

TORONTO – Adding the humanized monoclonal programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab to standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in the phase 1/3 IMpower133 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The combination may represent a new standard-of-care regimen for patients with untreated ES-SCLC, which is highly lethal – with 5-year survival of about 1%-3% – and represents about 13% of all lung cancers, Stephen V. Liu, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The median overall survival in 201 patients randomized to receive atezolizumab in addition to carboplatin and etoposide was 12.3 months, compared with 10.3 months in 202 patients who received placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide (hazard ratio, 0.7), Dr. Liu of Georgetown University, Washington, and a member of the trial steering committee said at the meeting, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“That translates to a 30% reduction in the risk of patient death,” he said at a press briefing during the conference. “Patients receiving atezolizumab had a much greater likelihood of being alive at 1 year, with a 1-year survival rate of 51.7% versus 38.2%.”

Median progression-free survival(PFS) also improved with atezolizumab (5.2 months vs. 4.3 months with placebo; HR, 0.77), as did 6-month PFS. At 12 months there was more than a doubling of PFS in the atezolizumab group (5.0% vs. 12.6%), he said.

Participants in the double-blind trial were treatment-naive all-comers with measurable ES-SCLC and good performance status. They received four 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve, 5 mg/mL per minute) on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide (100 mg/m²) on days 1-3 with either concurrent 1,200 mg of atezolizumab on day 1 or placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab or placebo until intolerable toxicity or disease progression.

The treatment benefits were seen across many patient subgroups and regardless of tumor mutational burden.

The atezolizumab safety profile was as expected with no new safety signals and did not compromise patients’ ability to complete four treatment cycles, Dr. Liu noted.

The findings are exciting in that they represent the first in decades to show a significant improvement in survival in patients with ES-SCLC, he said. Although most patients have an initial response to standard-of-care chemotherapy, that response isn’t durable. “As much as we expect a response, we also know that it’s transient; we expect a response, we expect relapse. There hasn’t been a change really in the past 20 years, at least, with this regimen that we’ve been using since the 1980s.”

That’s not for lack of trying, he added, noting that more than 40 phase 3 studies have looked at more than 60 different drugs since the 1970s and have “failed to move the needle.”

Immunotherapy, however, has dramatically improved the therapeutic landscape in non–small cell lung cancer, and preclinical data and clinical experience suggest “a possible synergy between checkpoint inhibition and chemotherapy,” which led to this global study, he explained.

“This is the first study in over 20 years to show a significant improvement in survival and progression-free survival in initial treatment of small cell lung cancer. The concurrent administration of atezolizumab with chemotherapy helped people live longer, compared to chemotherapy alone,” Dr. Liu concluded, adding in a press statement that “this is an exciting time in oncology, and we are thrilled to finally see real progress in the SCLC space.”

When questioned about the role of PD-L1 in this population and the possibility of identifying a subgroup in which this treatment may be more cost effective, he noted that tissue samples weren’t required at enrollment in this study, but were collected from some patients, and future analyses will assess those samples to try to determine if there are subsets of patients who derive particular benefit from immunotherapy in this setting.

“But today, in an all-comer population, this combination has improved survival,” he said.

IMpower133 was sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Liu is a speaker or advisory board member for Genentech, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Ignyta, and has received research or grant support from Genentech, Pfizer, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Esanex, Bayer, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Ignyta, Merck, Lycera, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Partners.

SOURCE: Liu SV et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract PL02.07.

TORONTO – Adding the humanized monoclonal programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab to standard first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in the phase 1/3 IMpower133 trial.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The combination may represent a new standard-of-care regimen for patients with untreated ES-SCLC, which is highly lethal – with 5-year survival of about 1%-3% – and represents about 13% of all lung cancers, Stephen V. Liu, MD, reported at the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The median overall survival in 201 patients randomized to receive atezolizumab in addition to carboplatin and etoposide was 12.3 months, compared with 10.3 months in 202 patients who received placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide (hazard ratio, 0.7), Dr. Liu of Georgetown University, Washington, and a member of the trial steering committee said at the meeting, sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“That translates to a 30% reduction in the risk of patient death,” he said at a press briefing during the conference. “Patients receiving atezolizumab had a much greater likelihood of being alive at 1 year, with a 1-year survival rate of 51.7% versus 38.2%.”

Median progression-free survival(PFS) also improved with atezolizumab (5.2 months vs. 4.3 months with placebo; HR, 0.77), as did 6-month PFS. At 12 months there was more than a doubling of PFS in the atezolizumab group (5.0% vs. 12.6%), he said.

Participants in the double-blind trial were treatment-naive all-comers with measurable ES-SCLC and good performance status. They received four 21-day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve, 5 mg/mL per minute) on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide (100 mg/m²) on days 1-3 with either concurrent 1,200 mg of atezolizumab on day 1 or placebo, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab or placebo until intolerable toxicity or disease progression.

The treatment benefits were seen across many patient subgroups and regardless of tumor mutational burden.

The atezolizumab safety profile was as expected with no new safety signals and did not compromise patients’ ability to complete four treatment cycles, Dr. Liu noted.

The findings are exciting in that they represent the first in decades to show a significant improvement in survival in patients with ES-SCLC, he said. Although most patients have an initial response to standard-of-care chemotherapy, that response isn’t durable. “As much as we expect a response, we also know that it’s transient; we expect a response, we expect relapse. There hasn’t been a change really in the past 20 years, at least, with this regimen that we’ve been using since the 1980s.”

That’s not for lack of trying, he added, noting that more than 40 phase 3 studies have looked at more than 60 different drugs since the 1970s and have “failed to move the needle.”

Immunotherapy, however, has dramatically improved the therapeutic landscape in non–small cell lung cancer, and preclinical data and clinical experience suggest “a possible synergy between checkpoint inhibition and chemotherapy,” which led to this global study, he explained.

“This is the first study in over 20 years to show a significant improvement in survival and progression-free survival in initial treatment of small cell lung cancer. The concurrent administration of atezolizumab with chemotherapy helped people live longer, compared to chemotherapy alone,” Dr. Liu concluded, adding in a press statement that “this is an exciting time in oncology, and we are thrilled to finally see real progress in the SCLC space.”

When questioned about the role of PD-L1 in this population and the possibility of identifying a subgroup in which this treatment may be more cost effective, he noted that tissue samples weren’t required at enrollment in this study, but were collected from some patients, and future analyses will assess those samples to try to determine if there are subsets of patients who derive particular benefit from immunotherapy in this setting.

“But today, in an all-comer population, this combination has improved survival,” he said.

IMpower133 was sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche. Dr. Liu is a speaker or advisory board member for Genentech, Pfizer, Takeda, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Ignyta, and has received research or grant support from Genentech, Pfizer, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Esanex, Bayer, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Ignyta, Merck, Lycera, AstraZeneca, and Molecular Partners.

SOURCE: Liu SV et al. WCLC 2018, Abstract PL02.07.

Former smokers’ adherence to annual follow-up screening for lung cancer was found to be less than optimal, according to a study to be presented at the CHEST 2018 annual meeting.

Paul B. Brasher, MD, and his colleagues from the Thoracic Oncology Research Group at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston studied adherence to recommended low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among Veterans Affairs patients who were at high risk for lung cancer and whose baseline LDCTs were negative.

A total of 2,106 veterans aged 55-80 years who had at least a 30-pack year smoking history were initially screened within the Veterans Health Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. The study tracked 1,120 of these patients for 18 months to determine their adherence to annual LDCT screening; the rate of adherence was 77.6%.

View the abstract here: https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)31772-0/fulltext

The study will be presented in the session Lung Cancer Screening: New Questions and New Answers, Tuesday, Oct. 9, 8:45 a.m., Convention Center 207A.

Former smokers’ adherence to annual follow-up screening for lung cancer was found to be less than optimal, according to a study to be presented at the CHEST 2018 annual meeting.

Paul B. Brasher, MD, and his colleagues from the Thoracic Oncology Research Group at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston studied adherence to recommended low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among Veterans Affairs patients who were at high risk for lung cancer and whose baseline LDCTs were negative.

A total of 2,106 veterans aged 55-80 years who had at least a 30-pack year smoking history were initially screened within the Veterans Health Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. The study tracked 1,120 of these patients for 18 months to determine their adherence to annual LDCT screening; the rate of adherence was 77.6%.

View the abstract here: https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)31772-0/fulltext

The study will be presented in the session Lung Cancer Screening: New Questions and New Answers, Tuesday, Oct. 9, 8:45 a.m., Convention Center 207A.

Former smokers’ adherence to annual follow-up screening for lung cancer was found to be less than optimal, according to a study to be presented at the CHEST 2018 annual meeting.

Paul B. Brasher, MD, and his colleagues from the Thoracic Oncology Research Group at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston studied adherence to recommended low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among Veterans Affairs patients who were at high risk for lung cancer and whose baseline LDCTs were negative.

A total of 2,106 veterans aged 55-80 years who had at least a 30-pack year smoking history were initially screened within the Veterans Health Administration Lung Cancer Screening Demonstration Project. The study tracked 1,120 of these patients for 18 months to determine their adherence to annual LDCT screening; the rate of adherence was 77.6%.

View the abstract here: https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)31772-0/fulltext

The study will be presented in the session Lung Cancer Screening: New Questions and New Answers, Tuesday, Oct. 9, 8:45 a.m., Convention Center 207A.