Explore the vast range of titles available.

Considering the increasing number of identified driver oncogene alterations, additional genetic tests are required to determine the treatment for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Next‐generation sequencing can detect multiple driver oncogenes simultaneously, enabling the analysis of limited amounts of biopsied tissue samples. In this retrospective, multicenter study (UMIN ID000039523), we evaluated real‐world clinical data using the Oncomine Dx Target Test Multi‐CDx System (Oncomine DxTT) as a companion diagnostic system. Patients with NSCLC who were tested for a panel of 46 genes using the Oncomine DxTT between June 2019 and January 2020 were eligible for enrollment. Patients from 19 institutions affiliated to the West Japan Oncology Group were recruited. The primary endpoint of the study was the success rate of genetic alteration testing in four driver genes (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF) using the Oncomine DxTT. In total, 533 patients were enrolled in the study. The success rate of genetic alteration testing for all four genes was 80.1% (95% CI 76.5%‐83.4%). Surgical resection was associated with the highest success rate (88.0%), which was significantly higher than that for bronchoscopic biopsy (76.8%, P = .005). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant difference for surgical resection alone (P = .006, 95% CI 1.36‐6.18, odds ratio 2.90). Although the success rate of genetic alteration testing immediately after Oncomine DxTT induction was not sufficient in this study, optimizing specimen quantity and quality may improve the use of driver gene testing in clinical settings. The mutation identification success rate for all four genes was 80.1%. Surgical resection was associated with the highest success rate. Multivariate analysis showed a significant difference for surgical resection alone.

With use of EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor monotherapy for patients with activating EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), median progression-free survival has been extended to about 12 months. Nevertheless, new strategies are needed to further extend progression-free survival and overall survival with acceptable toxicity and tolerability for this population. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab compared with erlotinib alone in patients with non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR mutation-positive disease. In this open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients from 30 centres across Japan with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and no previous chemotherapy for advanced disease received erlotinib 150 mg/day plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or erlotinib 150 mg/day monotherapy as a first-line therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as determined by an independent review committee. Randomisation was done with a dynamic allocation method, and the analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach, including all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had tumour assessment at least once after randomisation. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-111390. Between Feb 21, 2011, and March 5, 2012, 154 patients were enrolled. 77 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and bevacizumab and 77 to erlotinib alone, of whom 75 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 77 in the erlotinib alone group were included in the efficacy analyses. Median progression-free survival was 16·0 months (95% CI 13·9–18·1) with erlotinib plus bevacizumab and 9·7 months (5·7–11·1) with erlotinib alone (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79; log-rank test p=0·0015). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were rash (19 [25%] patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group vs 15 [19%] patients in the erlotinib alone group), hypertension (45 [60%] vs eight [10%]), and proteinuria (six [8%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred at a similar frequency in both groups (18 [24%] patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 19 [25%] patients in the erlotinib alone group). Erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination could be a new first-line regimen in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Further investigation of the regimen is warranted. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd.

Results from a previous phase 3 study suggested that prophylactic cranial irradiation reduces the incidence of symptomatic brain metastases and prolongs overall survival compared with no prophylactic cranial irradiation in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. However, because of the absence of brain imaging before enrolment and variations in chemotherapeutic regimens and irradiation doses, concerns have been raised about these findings. We did a phase 3 trial to reassess the efficacy of prophylactic cranial irradiation in the treatment of extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. We did this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study at 47 institutions in Japan. Patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer who had any response to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy and no brain metastases on MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive prophylactic cranial irradiation (25 Gy in ten daily fractions of 2·5 Gy) or observation. All patients were required to have brain MRI at 3-month intervals up to 12 months and at 18 and 24 months after enrolment. Randomisation was done by computer-generated allocation sequence, with age as a stratification factor and minimisation by institution, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and response to initial chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000001755, and is closed to new participants. Between April 3, 2009, and July 17, 2013, 224 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (113 to prophylactic cranial irradiation and 111 to observation). In the planned interim analysis on June 18, 2013, of the first 163 enrolled patients, Bayesian predictive probability of prophylactic cranial irradiation being superior to observation was 0·011%, resulting in early termination of the study because of futility. In the final analysis, median overall survival was 11·6 months (95% CI 9·5–13·3) in the prophylactic cranial irradiation group and 13·7 months (10·2–16·4) in the observation group (hazard ratio 1·27, 95% CI 0·96–1·68; p=0·094). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events at 3 months were anorexia (six [6%] of 106 in the prophylactic cranial irradiation group vs two [2%] of 111 in the observation group), malaise (three [3%] vs one [<1%]), and muscle weakness in a lower limb (one [<1%] vs six [5%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. In this Japanese trial, prophylactic cranial irradiation did not result in longer overall survival compared with observation in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. Prophylactic cranial irradiation is therefore not essential for patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer with any response to initial chemotherapy and a confirmed absence of brain metastases when patients receive periodic MRI examination during follow-up. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Alectinib, a potent, highly selective, CNS-active inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), showed promising efficacy and tolerability in the single-arm phase 1/2 AF-001JP trial in Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Given those promising results, we did a phase 3 trial to directly compare the efficacy and safety of alectinib and crizotinib. J-ALEX was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that recruited ALK inhibitor-naive Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who were chemotherapy-naive or had received one previous chemotherapy regimen, from 41 study sites in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web response system using a permuted-block method stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, treatment line, and disease stage to receive oral alectinib 300 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review facility. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study is ongoing and patient recruitment is closed. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (number JapicCTI-132316). Between Nov 18, 2013, and Aug 4, 2015, 207 patients were recruited and assigned to the alectinib (n=103) or crizotinib (n=104) groups. At data cutoff for the second interim analysis, 24 patients in the alectinib group had discontinued treatment compared with 61 in the crizotinib group, mostly due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff date Dec 3, 2015), an independent data monitoring committee determined that the primary endpoint of the study had been met (hazard ratio 0·34 [99·7% CI 0·17–0·71], stratified log-rank p<0·0001) and recommended an immediate release of the data. Median progression-free survival had not yet been reached with alectinib (95% CI 20·3–not estimated) and was 10·2 months (8·2–12·0) with crizotinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred at a greater frequency with crizotinib (54 [52%] of 104) than alectinib (27 [26%] of 103). Dose interruptions due to adverse events were also more prevalent with crizotinib (77 [74%] of 104) than with alectinib (30 [29%] of 103), and more patients receiving crizotinib (21 [20%]) than alectinib (nine [9%]) discontinued the study drug because of an adverse event. No adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in either treatment group. These results provide the first head-to-head comparison of alectinib and crizotinib and have the potential to change the standard of care for the first-line treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The dose of alectinib (300 mg twice daily) used in this study is lower than the approved dose in countries other than Japan; however, this limitation is being addressed in the ongoing ALEX study. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

According to rapid development of chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the Japan Lung Cancer Society has been updated its own guideline annually since 2010. In this latest version, all of the procedure was carried out in accordance with grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. It includes comprehensive literature search, systematic review, and determination of the recommendation by multidisciplinary expert panel which consisted of medical doctors, pharmacists, nurses, statisticians, and patients from patient advocacy group. Recently, we have had various types of chemotherapeutic drugs like kinase inhibitors or immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Thus, the guideline proposes to categorize patients into three entities: (1) driver oncogene-positive, (2) PD-L1 ≥ 50%, and (3) others. Based on this subgroup, 31 clinical questions were described. We believe that this attempt enables clinicians to choose appropriate treatment easier. Here, we report an English version of the Japan Lung Cancer Society Guidelines 2018 for NSCLC, stages IV.

The safety of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibody for patients with preexisting interstitial lung disease (ILD) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dependence of preexisting ILD on anti-PD-1 antibody-induced pneumonitis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We retrospectively reviewed the association of preexisting ILD with the incidence, radiographic pattern, and outcome of pneumonitis in NSCLC patients receiving anti-PD-1 antibody. A total of 331 patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 17 had preexisting ILD. The incidence of pneumonitis was higher among the patients with preexisting ILD than among those without preexisting ILD (29% vs. 10%, P = 0.027). The distributions of the CT appearances at the onset of anti-PD-1 antibody-induced pneumonitis were as follows: for the patients with preexisting ILD, two patients (40%) had diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), one patient each with organizing pneumonia-like (OP), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP), and other patterns (20% each); for the patients without preexisting ILD, 19 patients (61%) had OP, 8 (26%) had HP, 3 (10%) had DAD, and 1 (3.2%) had other patterns. The median onset time from the initiation of anti-PD-1 antibody treatment until the development of pneumonitis was 1.3 months (range 0.3–2.1 months) for the patients with preexisting ILD and 2.3 months (range 0.2–14.6 months) for the patients without preexisting ILD. Careful attention to the development of pneumonitis is needed, especially within the first 3 months after the start of anti-PD-1 antibody treatment, when using anti-PD-1 antibody to treat patients with preexisting ILD.

We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Currently, crizotinib is the only drug that has been approved for treatment of ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to study the activity and safety of CH5424802, a potent, selective, and orally available ALK inhibitor. In this multicentre, single-arm, open-label, phase 1–2 study of CH5424802, we recruited ALK inhibitor-naive patients with ALK-rearranged advanced NSCLC from 13 hospitals in Japan. In the phase 1 portion of the study, patients received CH5424802 orally twice daily by dose escalation. The primary endpoints of the phase 1 were dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and pharmacokinetic parameters. In the phase 2 portion of the study, patients received CH5424802 at the recommended dose identified in the phase 1 portion of the study orally twice a day. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 was the proportion of patients who had an objective response. Treatment was continued in 21-day cycles until disease progression, intolerable adverse events, or withdrawal of consent. The analysis was done by intent to treat. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-101264. Patients were enrolled between Sept 10, 2010, and April 18, 2012. The data cutoff date was July 31, 2012. In the phase 1 portion, 24 patients were treated at doses of 20–300 mg twice daily. No DLTs or adverse events of grade 4 were noted up to the highest dose; thus 300 mg twice daily was the recommended phase 2 dose. In the phase 2 portion of the study, 46 patients were treated with the recommended dose, of whom 43 achieved an objective response (93·5%, 95% CI 82·1–98·6) including two complete responses (4·3%, 0·5–14·8) and 41 partial responses (89·1%, 76·4–96·4). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 were recorded in 12 (26%) of 46 patients, including two patients each experiencing decreased neutrophil count and increased blood creatine phosphokinase. Serious adverse events occurred in five patients (11%). No grade 4 adverse events or deaths were reported. The study is still ongoing, since 40 of the 46 patients in the phase 2 portion remain on treatment. CH5424802 is well tolerated and highly active in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

The efficacy of gefitinib for patients with non‐adenocarcinoma non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations is unclear, because only a small percentage of patients enrolled in the clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of gefitinib for tumors harboring EGFR mutation were non‐adenocarcinoma NSCLC. A pooled analysis was conducted to clarify the efficacy of gefitinib for non‐adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations. A systematic search of the PUBMED databases was conducted to identify all clinical reports that contained advanced non‐adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations and treated with gefitinib. The selected patients were advanced non‐adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations who were treated with gefitinib and described in reports containing the data of the histology, status of EGFR mutations and response to gefitinib. This study selected 33 patients from 15 reports. Twenty‐seven and three of the 33 patients were squamous cell carcinoma and adenosquamous cell carcinoma, respectively. One patient each had large‐cell carcinoma, pleomorphic carcinoma and spindle cell carcinoma. Twenty‐one patients (64%) had sensitive EGFR mutations. The response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and median progression‐free survival (mPFS) was 27%, 67–70% and 3.0 months, respectively. These factors were statistically significantly inferior in the non‐adenocarcinoma NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations to adenocarcinoma patients harboring EGFR mutations selected from the same published reports (RR: 27%vs 66%, P = 0.000028; DCR: 67–70%vs 92–93%, P = 0.000014; mPFS: 3.0 vs 9.4 months, P = 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib is less effective in non‐adenocarcinoma NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations than adenocarcinoma harboring EGFR mutations. (Cancer Sci 2011; 102: 1032–1037)