Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Patients with advanced sarcomas have a poor prognosis and few treatment options that improve overall survival. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies offer short-lived disease control. We assessed pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, for safety and activity in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma or bone sarcoma. In this two-cohort, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with soft-tissue sarcoma or bone sarcoma from 12 academic centres in the USA that were members of the Sarcoma Alliance for Research through Collaboration (SARC). Patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had to be aged 18 years or older to enrol; patients with bone sarcoma could enrol if they were aged 12 years or older. Patients had histological evidence of metastatic or surgically unresectable locally advanced sarcoma, had received up to three previous lines of systemic anticancer therapy, had at least one measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and had at least one lesion accessible for biopsy. All patients were treated with 200 mg intravenous pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response. Patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab were included in the safety analysis and patients who progressed or reached at least one scan assessment were included in the activity analysis. Accrual is ongoing in some disease cohorts. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02301039. Between March 13, 2015, and Feb 18, 2016, we enrolled 86 patients, 84 of whom received pembrolizumab (42 in each disease cohort) and 80 of whom were evaluable for response (40 in each disease cohort). Median follow-up was 17·8 months (IQR 12·3–19·3). Seven (18%) of 40 patients with soft-tissue sarcoma had an objective response, including four (40%) of ten patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, two (20%) of ten patients with liposarcoma, and one (10%) of ten patients with synovial sarcoma. No patients with leiomyosarcoma (n=10) had an objective response. Two (5%) of 40 patients with bone sarcoma had an objective response, including one (5%) of 22 patients with osteosarcoma and one (20%) of five patients with chondrosarcoma. None of the 13 patients with Ewing's sarcoma had an objective response. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (six [14%]), decreased lymphocyte count (five [12%]), prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (four [10%]), and decreased platelet count (three [7%]) in the bone sarcoma group, and anaemia, decreased lymphocyte count, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time in the soft-tissue sarcoma group (three [7%] each). Nine (11%) patients (five [12%] in the bone sarcoma group and four [10%] in the soft-tissue sarcoma group) had treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs), five of whom had immune-related SAEs, including two with adrenal insufficiency, two with pneumonitis, and one with nephritis. The primary endpoint of overall response was not met for either cohort. However, pembrolizumab showed encouraging activity in patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma or dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Enrolment to expanded cohorts of those subtypes is ongoing to confirm and characterise the activity of pembrolizumab. Merck, SARC, Sarcoma Foundation of America, QuadW Foundation, Pittsburgh Cure Sarcoma, and Ewan McGregor.

Among persons with residual invasive disease after treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer, trastuzumab emtansine resulted in 7-year invasive disease–free survival of 80.8%, as compared with 67.1% with trastuzumab.

ObjectiveSorafenib is the standard systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Survival benefits of resection/local ablation for early HCC are compromised by 70% 5-year recurrence rates. The phase 3 STORM trial comparing sorafenib with placebo as adjuvant treatment did not achieve its primary endpoint of improving recurrence-free survival (RFS). The biomarker companion study BIOSTORM aims to define (A) predictors of recurrence prevention with sorafenib and (B) prognostic factors with B level of evidence.DesignTumour tissue from 188 patients randomised to receive sorafenib (83) or placebo (105) in the STORM trial was collected. Analyses included gene expression profiling, targeted exome sequencing (19 known oncodrivers), immunohistochemistry (pERK, pVEGFR2, Ki67), fluorescence in situ hybridisation (VEGFA) and immunome. A gene signature capturing improved RFS in sorafenib-treated patients was generated. All 70 RFS events were recurrences, thus time to recurrence equalled RFS. Predictive and prognostic value was assessed using Cox regression models and interaction test.ResultsBIOSTORM recapitulates clinicopathological characteristics of STORM. None of the biomarkers tested (related to angiogenesis and proliferation) or previously proposed gene signatures, or mutations predicted sorafenib benefit or recurrence. A newly generated 146-gene signature identifying 30% of patients captured benefit to sorafenib in terms of RFS (p of interaction=0.04). These sorafenib RFS responders were significantly enriched in CD4+ T, B and cytolytic natural killer cells, and lacked activated adaptive immune components. Hepatocytic pERK (HR=2.41; p=0.012) and microvascular invasion (HR=2.09; p=0.017) were independent prognostic factors.ConclusionIn BIOSTORM, only hepatocytic pERK and microvascular invasion predicted poor RFS. No mutation, gene amplification or previously proposed gene signatures predicted sorafenib benefit. A newly generated multigene signature associated with improved RFS on sorafenib warrants further validation.Trial registration number NCT00692770.

More than half of all patients with advanced urothelial cancer cannot receive standard, first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy because of renal dysfunction, poor performance status, or other comorbidities. We assessed the activity and safety of first-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer. In this multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study (KEYNOTE-052), cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial cancer who had not been previously treated with systemic chemotherapy were recruited from 91 academic medical centres in 20 countries. Enrolled patients received intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response (the proportion of patients who achieved complete or partial response) in all patients and by PD-L1 expression status according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, as assessed by independent central review. PD-L1 expression was assessed in tumour and inflammatory cells from tumour biopsies provided at study entry. Activity and safety were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab (all-patients-treated population). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02335424, and follow-up is ongoing. Between Feb 24, 2015, and Aug 8, 2016, 374 patients were enrolled and 370 patients received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. 89 (24%, 95% CI 20–29) of 370 patients had a centrally assessed objective response, and as of Sept 1, 2016 (data cutoff), 74 (83%) of 89 responses were ongoing. Median follow-up was 5 months (IQR 3·0–8·6). A PD-L1-expression cutoff of 10% was associated with a higher frequency of response to pembrolizumab; 42 (38%, 95% CI 29–48) of 110 patients with a combined positive score of 10% or more had a centrally assessed objective response. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (eight [2%] of 370 patients), alkaline phosphatase increase (five [1%]), colitis, and muscle weakness (both four [1%]). 36 (10%) of 370 patients had a serious treatment-related adverse event. 17 (5%) of 370 patients died from non-treatment-related adverse events associated with death, and one patient died from treatment-related adverse events (myositis in addition to grade 3 thyroiditis, grade 3 hepatitis, grade 3 pneumonia, and grade 4 myocarditis). First-line pembrolizumab has antitumour activity and acceptable tolerability in cisplatin-ineligible patients with urothelial cancer, most of whom were elderly, had poor prognostic factors, or had serious comorbidities. In view of this result, pembrolizumab has become a new treatment option for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible or not suitable candidates for chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab in the first-line setting is being further assessed in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-361 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02335424). Merck & Co.

After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, roughly half of the patients with squamous cell carcinoma and a quarter of those with adenocarcinoma have a pathological complete response of the primary tumour before surgery. Thus, the necessity of standard oesophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be reconsidered for patients who respond sufficiently to neoadjuvant treatment. In this study, we aimed to establish the accuracy of detection of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with different diagnostic approaches, and the optimal combination of diagnostic techniques for clinical response evaluations. The preSANO trial was a prospective, multicentre, diagnostic cohort study at six centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had histologically proven, resectable, squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction, and were eligible for potential curative therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (five weekly cycles of carboplatin [area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min] plus paclitaxel [50 mg/m2 of body-surface area] combined with 41·4 Gy radiotherapy in 23 fractions) followed by oesophagectomy. 4–6 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, patients had oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography with measurement of maximum tumour thickness. Patients with histologically proven locoregional residual disease or no-pass during endoscopy and without distant metastases underwent immediate surgical resection. In the remaining patients a second clinical response evaluation was done (PET–CT, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography with measurement of maximum tumour thickness, and fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes), followed by surgery 12–14 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the correlation between clinical response during clinical response evaluations and the final pathological response in resection specimens, as shown by the proportion of tumour regression grade (TRG) 3 or 4 (>10% residual carcinoma in the resection specimen) residual tumours that was missed during clinical response evaluations. This study was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4834), and has been completed. Between July 22, 2013, and Dec 28, 2016, 219 patients were included, 207 of whom were included in the analyses. Eight of 26 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (31% [95% CI 17–50]) were missed by endoscopy with regular biopsies and fine-needle aspiration. Four of 41 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (10% [95% CI 4–23]) were missed with bite-on-bite biopsies and fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopic ultrasonography with maximum tumour thickness measurement missed TRG3 or TRG4 residual tumours in 11 of 39 patients (28% [95% CI 17–44]). PET–CT missed six of 41 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (15% [95% CI 7–28]). PET–CT detected interval distant histologically proven metastases in 18 (9%) of 190 patients (one squamous cell carcinoma, 17 adenocarcinomas). After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, clinical response evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography, bite-on-bite biopsies, and fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes was adequate for detection of locoregional residual disease, with PET–CT for detection of interval metastases. Active surveillance with this combination of diagnostic modalities is now being assessed in a phase 3 randomised controlled trial (SANO trial; Netherlands Trial Register NTR6803). Dutch Cancer Society.

Despite standard curative-intent treatment with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by radical surgery in eligible patients, muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma has a high recurrence rate and no level 1 evidence for adjuvant therapy. We aimed to evaluate atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. In the IMvigor010 study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 192 hospitals, academic centres, and community oncology practices across 24 countries or regions, patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2 were enrolled within 14 weeks after radical cystectomy or nephroureterectomy with lymph node dissection. Patients had ypT2–4a or ypN+ tumours following neoadjuvant chemotherapy or pT3–4a or pN+ tumours if no neoadjuvant chemotherapy was received. Patients not treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy must have been ineligible for or declined cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. No post-surgical radiotherapy or previous adjuvant chemotherapy was allowed. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a permuted block (block size of four) method and interactive voice-web response system to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab given intravenously every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or up to 1 year, whichever occurred first, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy use, number of lymph nodes resected, pathological nodal status, tumour stage, and PD-L1 expression on tumour-infiltrating immune cells. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who either received at least one dose of atezolizumab or had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02450331, and is ongoing but not recruiting patients. Between Oct 5, 2015, and July 30, 2018, we enrolled 809 patients, of whom 406 were assigned to the atezolizumab group and 403 were assigned to the observation group. Median follow-up was 21·9 months (IQR 13·2–29·8). Median disease-free survival was 19·4 months (95% CI 15·9–24·8) with atezolizumab and 16·6 months (11·2–24·8) with observation (stratified hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·74–1·08]; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were urinary tract infection (31 [8%] of 390 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 20 [5%] of 397 patients in the observation group), pyelonephritis (12 [3%]) vs 14 [4%]), and anaemia (eight [2%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 122 (31%) patients who received atezolizumab and 71 (18%) who underwent observation. 63 (16%) patients who received atezolizumab had a treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse event. One treatment-related death, due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, occurred in the atezolizumab group. To our knowledge, IMvigor010 is the largest, first-completed phase 3 adjuvant study to evaluate the role of a checkpoint inhibitor in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival in the atezolizumab group over observation. Atezolizumab was generally tolerable, with no new safety signals; however, higher frequencies of adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported than in metastatic urothelial carcinoma studies. These data do not support the use of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitor therapy in the setting evaluated in IMvigor010 at this time. F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90Y-loaded resin microspheres 2–5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9–33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0–35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7–9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7–11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94–1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. Sirtex Medical Inc.

In MONALEESA-2, ribociclib plus letrozole showed improved progression-free survival compared with letrozole alone as first-line treatment for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. MONALEESA-7 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with advanced, HR-positive breast cancer. This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 188 centres in 30 countries. Eligible patients were premenopausal women aged 18–59 years who had histologically or cytologically confirmed HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria, or at least one predominantly lytic bone lesion; and had not received previous treatment with cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors. Endocrine therapy and chemotherapy in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting was permitted, as was up to one line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to receive oral ribociclib (600 mg/day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) or matching placebo with either oral tamoxifen (20 mg daily) or a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (letrozole 2·5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg, both oral, daily), all with goserelin (3·6 mg administered subcutaneously on day 1 of every 28-day cycle). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. MONALEESA-7 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278120 and is ongoing, but no longer enrolling patients. Between Dec 17, 2014, and Aug 1, 2016, 672 patients were randomly assigned: 335 to the ribociclib group and 337 to the placebo group. Per investigator's assessment, median progression-free survival was 23·8 months (95% CI 19·2–not reached) in the ribociclib group compared with 13·0 months (11·0–16·4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·44–0·69; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported in more than 10% of patients in either group were neutropenia (203 [61%] of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 12 [4%] of 337 in the placebo group) and leucopenia (48 [14%] and four [1%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 60 (18%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and 39 (12%) of 337 in the placebo group, of which 15 (4%) and six (2%), respectively, were attributed to the study regimen. 12 (4%) of 335 patients in the ribociclib group and ten (3%) of 337 in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. 11 deaths occurred (five [1%] in the ribociclib group and six [2%] in the placebo group) during or within 30 days after treatment, most of which were due to progression of the underlying breast cancer (three [1%] and six [2%]). The remaining two deaths in the ribociclib group were due to an intracranial haemorrhage in an anticoagulated patient, and a pre-existing wound haemorrhage in another patient. Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy improved progression-free survival compared with placebo plus endocrine therapy, and had a manageable safety profile in patients with premenopausal, HR-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. The combination could represent a new first-line treatment option for these patients. Novartis.

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.