Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although comprehensive biomarker testing is recommended for all patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before initiation of first-line treatment, tissue availability can limit testing. Genomic testing in liquid biopsies can be utilized to overcome the inherent limitations of tissue sampling and identify the most appropriate biomarker-informed treatment option for patients. The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is a global, open-label, multicohort trial that evaluates the efficacy and safety of multiple therapies in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and targetable alterations identified by liquid biopsy. We present data from Cohort D ( ROS1 -positive). Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IIIB/IV, ROS1 -positive NSCLC detected by liquid biopsies received entrectinib 600 mg daily. At data cutoff (November 2021), 55 patients were enrolled and 54 had measurable disease. Cohort D met its primary endpoint: the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator was 81.5%, which was consistent with the ORR from the integrated analysis of entrectinib (investigator-assessed ORR, 73.4%; data cutoff May 2019, ≥12 months of follow-up). The safety profile of entrectinib was consistent with previous reports. These results demonstrate consistency with those from the integrated analysis of entrectinib in patients with ROS1 -positive NSCLC identified by tissue-based testing, and support the clinical value of liquid biopsies to inform clinical decision-making. The integration of liquid biopsies into clinical practice provides patients with a less invasive diagnostic method than tissue-based testing and has faster turnaround times that may expedite the reaching of clinical decisions in the advanced/metastatic NSCLC setting. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03178552 . Results from this single-arm cohort of the BFAST trial showed that the clinical efficacy of entrectinib in patients with ROS1 -positive NSCLC, selected using liquid biopsies, is consistent with that seen in previous reports where patients were selected using tissue-based testing methods.

SummaryThe aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the clinical use and real-world efficacy of durvalumab maintenance treatment after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in unresectable stage, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All consecutive patients with unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 expression (≥1%) treated after October 2018 were included. Regular follow up, including physical examination, PET/CT and/or contrast-enhanced CT-Thorax/Abdomen were performed every three months after CRT. Descriptive treatment pattern analyses, including reasons of discontinuation and salvage treatment, were undertaken. Statistics were calculated from the last day of thoracic irradiation (TRT). Twenty-six patients were included. Median follow up achieved 20.6 months (range: 1.9–30.6). Durvalumab was initiated after a median of 25 (range: 13–103) days after completion of CRT. In median 14 (range: 2–24) cycles of durvalumab were applied within 6.4 (range 1–12.7) months. Six patients (23%) are still in treatment and seven (27%) have completed treatment with 24 cycles. Maintenance treatment was discontinued in 13 (50%) patients: 4 (15%) patients developed grade 3 pneumonitis according to CTCAE v5 after a median of 3.9 (range: 0.5–11.6) months and 7 (range: 2–17) cycles of durvalumab. Four (15%) patients developed grade 2 skin toxicity. One (4%) patient has discontinued treatment due to incompliance. Six and 12- month progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 82% and 62%, median PFS was not reached. No case of hyperprogression was documented. Eight (31%) patients have relapsed during maintenance treatment after a median of 4.8 (range: 2.2–11.3) months and 11 (range: 6–17) durvalumab cycles. Two patients (9%) developed a local-regional recurrence after 14 and 17 cycles of durvalumab. Extracranial distant metastases and brain metastases as first site of failure were detected in 4 (15%) and 2 (8%) patients, respectively. Three (13%) patients presented with symptomatic relapse. Our prospective study confirmed a favourable safety profile of durvalumab maintenance treatment after completion of CRT in unresectable stage, locally advanced NSCLC in a real-world setting. In a median follow-up time of 20.6 months, durvalumab was discontinued in 27% of all patients due to progressive disease. All patients with progressive disease were eligible for second-line treatment.

Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash—a class effect of EGFR antibodies—that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4–12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9–11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74–0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3–4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. Eli Lilly and Company.

Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4–12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 μg lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25·6 months (95% CI 22·5–29·2) with tecemotide versus 22·3 months (19·6–25·5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0·88, 0·75–1·03; p=0·123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30·8 months (95% CI 25·6–36·8) compared with 20·6 months (17·4–23·9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19·4 months [95% CI 17·6–23·1] vs 24·6 months [18·8–33·0], respectively; adjusted HR 1·12, 0·87–1·44; p=0·38). Grade 3–4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).

The increased detection of small-sized peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has renewed interest in sublobar resection in lieu of lobectomy. We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in which patients with NSCLC clinically staged as T1aN0 (tumor size, ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned to undergo sublobar resection or lobar resection after intraoperative confirmation of node-negative disease. The primary end point was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomization and disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points were overall survival, locoregional and systemic recurrence, and pulmonary functions. From June 2007 through March 2017, a total of 697 patients were assigned to undergo sublobar resection (340 patients) or lobar resection (357 patients). After a median follow-up of 7 years, sublobar resection was noninferior to lobar resection for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.24). In addition, overall survival after sublobar resection was similar to that after lobar resection (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.26). The 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% (95% CI, 57.9 to 68.8) after sublobar resection and 64.1% (95% CI, 58.5 to 69.0) after lobar resection. The 5-year overall survival was 80.3% (95% CI, 75.5 to 84.3) after sublobar resection and 78.9% (95% CI, 74.1 to 82.9) after lobar resection. No substantial difference was seen between the two groups in the incidence of locoregional or distant recurrence. At 6 months postoperatively, a between-group difference of 2 percentage points was measured in the median percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, favoring the sublobar-resection group. In patients with peripheral NSCLC with a tumor size of 2 cm or less and pathologically confirmed node-negative disease in the hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy with respect to disease-free survival. Overall survival was similar with the two procedures. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CALGB 140503 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00499330.).

In a randomized trial of perioperative nivolumab as compared with chemotherapy, 18-month event-free survival was 70% in the nivolumab group and 50% in the chemotherapy group at 2-year median follow-up.

Amivantamab, an antibody against MET and EGFR, plus lazertinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, induced a response in 86% of previously untreated patients and led to a median progression-free survival of nearly 2 years.

Among patients with EGFR -mutated lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy, 65% of patients who received osimertinib were alive without progression at 2 years, as compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

Patients with resectable non–small-cell lung cancer had a greater response and longer event-free survival with preoperative durvalumab plus chemotherapy and adjuvant durvalumab than with chemotherapy alone.

Resistance to first-generation or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy develops in almost half of patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after 1 year of treatment. The JO25567 phase 2 trial comparing erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination therapy with erlotinib monotherapy established the activity and manageable toxicity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab in patients with NSCLC. We did a phase 3 trial to validate the results of the JO25567 study and report here the results from the preplanned interim analysis. In this prespecified interim analysis of the randomised, open-label, phase 3 NEJ026 trial, we recruited patients with stage IIIB–IV disease or recurrent, cytologically or histologically confirmed non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR genomic aberrations from 69 centres across Japan. Eligible patients were at least 20 years old, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, no previous chemotherapy for advanced disease, and one or more measurable lesions based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.1). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day plus intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 21 days, or erlotinib 150 mg per day monotherapy. Randomisation was done by minimisation, stratified by sex, smoking status, clinical stage, and EGFR mutation subtype. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This study is ongoing; the data cutoff for this prespecified interim analysis was Sept 21, 2017. Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of treatment and had at least one response evaluation. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000017069. Between June 3, 2015, and Aug 31, 2016, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n=114) or erlotinib alone (n=114). 112 patients in each group were evaluable for efficacy, and safety was evaluated in 112 patients in the combination therapy group and 114 in the monotherapy group. Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 7·0–15·7). At the time of interim analysis, median progression-free survival for patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group was 16·9 months (95% CI 14·2–21·0) compared with 13·3 months (11·1–15·3) for patients in the erlotinib group (hazard ratio 0·605, 95% CI 0·417–0·877; p=0·016). 98 (88%) of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 53 (46%) of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was rash (23 [21%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group vs 24 [21%] of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group). Nine (8%) of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and five (4%) of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group had serious adverse events. The most common serious adverse events were grade 4 neutropenia (two [2%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group) and grade 4 hepatic dysfunction (one [1%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and one [1%] of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The results of this interim analysis showed that bevacizumab plus erlotinib combination therapy improves progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC. Future studies with longer follow-up, and overall survival and quality-of-life data will be required to further assess the efficacy of this combination in this setting. Chugai Pharmaceutical.