A phase Ib/II study of cabozantinib (XL184) with or without erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

PurposeCabozantinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor that targets MET, AXL, and VEGFR2, and may synergize with EGFR inhibition in NSCLC. Cabozantinib was assessed alone or in combination with erlotinib in patients with progressive NSCLC and EGFR mutations who had previously received erlotinib.MethodsThis was a phase Ib/II study (NCT00596648). The primary objectives of phase I were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics and to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cabozantinib plus erlotinib in patients who failed prior erlotinib treatment. In phase II, patients with prior response or stable disease with erlotinib who progressed were randomized to single-agent cabozantinib 100 mg qd vs cabozantinib 100 mg qd and erlotinib 50 mg qd (phase I MTD), with a primary objective of estimating objective response rate (ORR).ResultsSixty-four patients were treated in phase I. Doses of 100 mg cabozantinib plus 50 mg erlotinib, or 40 mg cabozantinib plus 150 mg erlotinib were determined to be MTDs. Diarrhea was the most frequent dose-limiting toxicity and the most frequent AE (87.5% of patients). The ORR for phase I was 8.2% (90% CI 3.3-16.5). In phase II, one patient in the cabozantinib arm (N = 15) experienced a partial response, for an ORR of 6.7% (90% CI 0.3-27.9), with no responses for cabozantinib plus erlotinib (N = 13). There was no evidence that co-administration of cabozantinib markedly altered erlotinib pharmacokinetics or vice versa.ConclusionsDespite responses with cabozantinib/erlotinib in phase I, there were no responses in the combination arm of phase II in patients with acquired resistance to erlotinib. Cabozantinib did not appear to re-sensitize these patients to erlotinib

Brief Report: Safety and Antitumor Activity of Alectinib Plus Atezolizumab From a Phase 1b Study in Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC

INTRODUCTION: Alectinib is a preferred first-line treatment option for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. Combination regimens of alectinib with immune checkpoint inhibitors are being evaluated for synergistic effects. METHODS: Adults with treatment-naive, stage IIIB/IV, or recurrent ALK-positive NSCLC were enrolled into a two-stage phase 1b study. Patients received alectinib 600 mg (twice daily during cycle 1 and throughout each 21-d cycle thereafter) plus atezolizumab 1200 mg (d8 of cycle 1 and then d1 of each 21-d cycle). Primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability of alectinib plus atezolizumab. Secondary objectives included assessments of antitumor activity. RESULTS: In total, 21 patients received more than or equal to 1 dose of alectinib or atezolizumab. As no dose-limiting toxicities were observed in stage 1 (n = 7), the starting dose and schedule were continued into stage 2 (n = 14). Median duration of follow-up was 29 months (range: 1-39). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% of the patients, most often rash (19%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related adverse events were reported. Confirmed objective response rate was 86% (18 of 21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64-97). Median progression-free survival was not estimable (NE) (95% CI: 13 mo-NE), neither was median overall survival (95% CI: 33 mo-NE). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of alectinib and atezolizumab is feasible, but increased toxicity was found compared with the individual agents. With small sample sizes and relatively short follow-up, definitive conclusions regarding antitumor activity cannot be made

Brigatinib Versus Crizotinib in ALK Inhibitor–Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC: Final Results of Phase 3 ALTA-1L Trial

Introduction: In the phase 3 study entitled ALK in Lung cancer Trial of brigAtinib in 1st Line (ALTA-1L), which is a study of brigatinib in ALK inhibitor–naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, brigatinib exhibited superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus crizotinib in the two planned interim analyses. Here, we report the final efficacy, safety, and exploratory results. Methods: Patients were randomized to brigatinib 180 mg once daily (7-d lead-in at 90 mg once daily) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was a blinded independent review committee–assessed PFS. Genetic alterations in plasma cell-free DNA were assessed in relation to clinical efficacy. Results: A total of 275 patients were enrolled (brigatinib, n = 137; crizotinib, n = 138). At study end, (brigatinib median follow-up = 40.4 mo), the 3-year PFS by blinded independent review committee was 43% (brigatinib) versus 19% (crizotinib; median = 24.0 versus 11.1 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35–0.66). The median overall survival was not reached in either group (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53–1.22). Posthoc analyses suggested an overall survival benefit for brigatinib in patients with baseline brain metastases (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89). Detectable baseline EML4-ALK fusion variant 3 and TP53 mutation in plasma were associated with poor PFS. Brigatinib exhibited superior efficacy compared with crizotinib regardless of EML4-ALK variant and TP53 mutation. Emerging secondary ALK mutations were rare in patients progressing on brigatinib. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: In the ALTA-1L final analysis, with longer follow-up, brigatinib continued to exhibit superior efficacy and tolerability versus crizotinib in patients with or without poor prognostic biomarkers. The suggested survival benefit with brigatinib in patients with brain metastases warrants future study

Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3-year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases

Abstract Background Long-term data with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. Two phase III trials demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and a favorable safety profile with the anti-programmed death-1 antibody nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced squamous (CheckMate 017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate 057) NSCLC. We report results from ≥3 years' follow-up, including subgroup analyses of patients with liver metastases, who historically have poorer prognosis among patients with NSCLC. Patients and methods Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) until progression or discontinuation. The primary end point of each study was OS. Patients with baseline liver metastases were pooled across studies by treatment for subgroup analyses. Results After 40.3 months' minimum follow-up in CheckMate 017 and 057, nivolumab continued to show an OS benefit versus docetaxel: estimated 3-year OS rates were 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 14% to 21%] versus 8% (95% CI, 6% to 11%) in the pooled population with squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC. Nivolumab was generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified. Of 854 randomized patients across both studies, 193 had baseline liver metastases. Nivolumab resulted in improved OS compared with docetaxel in patients with liver metastases (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.91), consistent with findings from the overall pooled study population (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81). Rates of treatment-related hepatic adverse events (primarily grade 1–2 liver enzyme elevations) were slightly higher in nivolumab-treated patients with liver metastases (10%) than in the overall pooled population (6%). Conclusions After 3 years' minimum follow-up, nivolumab continued to demonstrate an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. Similarly, nivolumab demonstrated an OS benefit versus docetaxel in patients with liver metastases, and remained well tolerated. Clinical trial registration CheckMate 017: NCT01642004; CheckMate 057: NCT01673867

'The terrible twos': Gaining control in the nursery?

'The terrible twos' are often described as a time of 'gaining control', usually thought of as adults asserting control over children, who learn to control themselves. However, toddlerhood is as much about children learning to take control for themselves. This paper is an attempt to detail something of the social geography in the toddler room of a Scottish nursery, considering both styles of adult control and the ways in which toddlers attempt to appropriate and reconfigure space and time for themselves. That is, the ways in which space and time are negotiated in the course of day-to-day nursery life

Supporting mental health, wellbeing and study skills in Higher Education:an online intervention system

Abstract Background Dealing with psychological and study skill difficulties can present a challenge for both Higher Education (HE) students, who suffer from them, but also for HE Institutions and their support services. Alternative means of support, such as online interventions, have been identified as cost-effective and efficient ways to provide inclusive support to HE students, removing many of the barriers to help-seeking as well as promoting mental health and wellbeing. Case presentation The current case study initially outlines the rigorous approach in the development of one such online intervention system, MePlusMe. It further highlights key features that constitute innovative delivery of evidence-based psychological and educational practice in the areas of mental health, promotion of wellbeing, support of mood and everyday functioning, and study-skills enhancement. Conclusions This case study aims to present the innovative features of MePlusMe in relation to current needs and evidence-basis. Finally, it presents future directions in the evaluation, assessment, and evidence of the fitness-for-purpose process

A multidisciplinary consensus on the morphological and functional responses to immunotherapy treatment

The implementation of immunotherapy has radically changed the treatment of oncological patients. Currently, immunotherapy is indicated in the treatment of patients with head and neck tumors, melanoma, lung cancer, bladder tumors, colon cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer, Merkel cell carcinoma, liver cancer, leukemia and lymphomas. However, its efficacy is restricted to a limited number of cases. The challenge is, therefore, to identify which subset of patients would benefit from immunotherapy. To this end, the establishment of immunotherapy response criteria and predictive and prognostic biomarkers is of paramount interest. In this report, a group of experts of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), and Spanish Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SEMNIM) provide an up-to-date review and a consensus guide on these issues

Brigatinib versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Background Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear.Methods In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred.Results A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The confirmed objective response rate was 71% (95% CI, 62 to 78) with brigatinib and 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) with crizotinib; the confirmed rate of intracranial response among patients with measurable lesions was 78% (95% CI, 52 to 94) and 29% (95% CI, 11 to 52), respectively. No new safety concerns were noted.Conclusions Among patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received an ALK inhibitor, progression-free survival was significantly longer among patients who received brigatinib than among those who received crizotinib. (Funded by Ariad Pharmaceuticals; ALTA-1L ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02737501 .)