Metronomic treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with daily oral vinorelbine - a Phase I trial

Micro-abstract: In a Phase I dose-finding study of metronomic daily oral vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, a recommended dose was established for this therapeutic approach. In addition, this trial revealed promising efficacy data and an acceptable tolerability profile. The observed vinorelbine blood concentrations suggest continuous anti-angiogenic coverage. Introduction: We present a Phase I dose-finding study investigating metronomic daily oral vinorelbine (Navelbine (R) Oral, NVBo) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients with stage III/IV NSCLC received daily NVBo at fixed dose levels of 20-50 mg/d for 21 days of each 4-week cycle. Primary end point was the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary end points included tumor response, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and tolerability. Results: Twenty-seven patients with advanced NSCLC were enrolled. Most of them were extensively pretreated. Daily NVBo was well tolerated up to 30 mg/d. At 40 mg/d, two of five patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three of six patients had DLTs at the 50 mg/d level. The recommended dose was established at 30 mg/d in cycle 1, with escalation to 40 mg/d in cycle 2, if tolerated. Pharmacokinetic analyses showed continuous blood exposure over 21 days and only marginal accumulation. The tolerability profile was acceptable (all dose levels - all grades: decreased appetite 33%, diarrhea 33%, leukopenia 33%, nausea 30%, vomiting 26%;>= grade 3: leukopenia 30%, lymphopenia 19%, neutropenia 19%, febrile neutropenia 15%). Disease control rate, OS and TTP signaled a treatment effect. Conclusion: Daily metronomic NVBo therapy in extensively pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC is feasible and safe at the recommended dose of 30 mg/d. Escalation to 40 mg/d in the second cycle is possible. The blood concentrations of vinorelbine after daily metronomic dosing reached lower peaks than intravenous or oral conventional dosing. Blood concentrations were consistent with anti-angiogenic or immune modulating pharmacologic properties of vinorelbine. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this novel approach in specific patient populations

Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Bevacizumab or Bevacizumab-Plus-Pemetrexed Maintenance Therapy in AVAPERL (MO22089)

IntroductionIn the phase III AVAPERL trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer receiving bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance after first-line induction had a significant progression-free survival benefit relative to those treated with single-agent bevacizumab maintenance but with an increase in grade ≥3 adverse events. Here, we compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between AVAPERL maintenance arms.MethodsPatient-reported outcomes were collected at designated intervals from preinduction to final visits. HRQOL was assessed using the self-administered European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the Quality of Life Lung Cancer–Specific Module 13. Differences in scores of 10 points or more between arms were above the minimum important difference threshold and considered clinically meaningful.ResultsDuring induction, patient-reported coughing symptoms improved slightly, whereas fatigue and appetite loss scores worsened relative to preinduction baseline. During maintenance, changes in mean global health status and the majority of Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Quality of Life Lung Cancer–Specific Module 13 subscale scores did not differ between trial arms by the minimum important difference defining clinically meaningful (better or worse) patient-reported outcomes. Exceptions were patient-reported role functional status, fatigue symptoms and appetite loss symptoms (favoring bevacizumab), and pain in arm or shoulder symptoms (favoring bevacizumab-plus-pemetrexed maintenance), which differed by clinically meaningful amounts at more than one maintenance assessment.ConclusionsIn AVAPERL, HRQOL remained relatively stable throughout maintenance and was generally similar in both arms. Despite an increase in adverse event rates, the addition of pemetrexed to bevacizumab maintenance resulted in similar stabilization of disease symptoms with improved efficacy outcomes

Atezolizumab Versus Docetaxel in Pretreated Patients With NSCLC: Final Results From the Randomized Phase 2 POPLAR and Phase 3 OAK Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION: The phase 2 POPLAR and phase 3 OAK studies of the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunotherapy atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC revealed significant improvements in survival versus docetaxel (p = 0.04 and 0.0003, respectively). Longer follow-up permits evaluation of continued benefit of atezolizumab. This study reports the final overall survival (OS) and safety findings from both trials. METHODS: POPLAR randomized 287 (atezolizumab,144; docetaxel,143) and OAK randomized 1225 (atezolizumab, 613; docetaxel, 612) patients. Patients received atezolizumab (1200-mg fixed dose) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks. Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A longer OS was observed in patients receiving atezolizumab versus docetaxel in POPLAR (median OS = 12.6 mo versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.00) and OAK (median OS = 13.3 versus 9.8 mo; hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.68-0.89). The 4-year OS rates in POPLAR were 14.8% (8.7-20.8) and 8.1% (3.2-13.0) and those in OAK were 15.5% (12.4-18.7) and 8.7% (6.2-11.3) for atezolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. Atezolizumab had improved OS benefit compared with docetaxel across all PD-L1 expression and histology groups. Most 4-year survivors in the docetaxel arms received subsequent immunotherapy (POPLAR, 50%; OAK, 65%). Of the 4-year survivors, most had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 and nonsquamous histological classification and approximately half were responders (POPLAR: atezolizumab, seven of 15; docetaxel, three of four; OAK: atezolizumab, 24 of 43; docetaxel, 11 of 26). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 27% and 16% of atezolizumab 4-year survivors in POPLAR and OAK, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up suggests a consistent survival benefit with atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression, histology, or subsequent immunotherapy. Atezolizumab had no new safety signals, and the safety profile was similar to that in previous studies

Comparison of SP142 and 22C3 Immunohistochemistry PD-L1 Assays for Clinical Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the Randomized OAK Trial

BACKGROUND: This phase III OAK trial (NCT02008227) subgroup analysis (data cutoff, January 9, 2019) evaluated the predictive value of 2 PD-L1 IHC tests (VENTANA SP142 and Dako 22C3) for benefit from atezolizumab versus docetaxel by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: PD-L1 expression was assessed prospectively with SP142 on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) and retrospectively with 22C3 using a tumor proportion score (TPS) based on TC membrane staining. Efficacy was assessed in the 22C3 biomarker-evaluable population (22C3-BEP) (n = 577; 47.1% of SP142-intention-to-treat population) and non-22C3-BEP (n = 648) in PD-L1 subgroups (high, low, and negative) and according to selection by 1 or both assays. RESULTS: In the 22C3-BEP, overall survival benefits with atezolizumab versus docetaxel were observed across PD-L1 subgroups; benefits were greatest in SP142-defined PD-L1-high (TC3 or IC3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.63]) and 22C3-defined PD-L1-high (TPS ≥ 50%: HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.82]) and low (TPS, 1% to \u3c 50%: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82]) groups. Progression-free survival improved with increasing PD-L1 expression for both assays. SP142 and 22C3 assays identified overlapping and unique patient populations in PD-L1-high, positive, and negative subgroups. Overall survival and progression-free survival benefits favored atezolizumab over docetaxel in double PD-L1-positive and negative groups; patients with both SP142- and 22C3-positive tumors derived the greatest benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Despite different scoring algorithms and differing sensitivity levels, the SP142 and 22C3 assays similarly predicted atezolizumab benefit at validated PD-L1 thresholds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Safety and Immunogenicity of the PRAME Cancer Immunotherapeutic in Patients with Resected Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase I Dose Escalation Study

International audience; INTRODUCTION:Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is standard treatment for surgically resected stage II to IIIA NSCLC, but the relapse rate is high. The preferentially expressed antigen of melanoma (PRAME) tumor antigen is expressed in two-thirds of NSCLC and offers an attractive target for antigen-specific immunization. A phase I dose escalation study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of a PRAME immunotherapeutic consisting of recombinant PRAME plus proprietary immunostimulant AS15 in patients with surgically resected NSCLC (NCT01159964).METHODS:Patients with PRAME-positive resected stage IB to IIIA NSCLC were enrolled in three consecutive cohorts to receive up to 13 injections of PRAME immunotherapeutic (recombinant PRAME protein dose of 20 μg, 100 μg, or 500 μg, with a fixed dose of AS15). Adverse events, predefined dose-limiting toxicity, and the anti-PRAME humoral response (measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) were coprimary end points. Anti-PRAME cellular responses were assessed.RESULTS:A total of 60 patients were treated (18 received 20 μg of PRAME, 18 received 100 μg of PRAME, and 24 received 500 μg of PRAME). No dose-limiting toxicity was reported. Adverse events considered by the investigator to be causally related to treatment were grade 1 or 2, and most were injection site reactions or fever. All patients had detectable anti-PRAME antibodies after four immunizations. The percentages of patients with PRAME-specific CD4-positive T cells were higher at the dose of 500 μg compared with lower doses. No predefined CD8-positive T-cell responses were detected.CONCLUSION:The PRAME immunotherapeutic had an acceptable safety profile. All patients had anti-PRAME humoral responses that were not dose related, and 80% of those treated at the highest dose showed a cellular immune response. The dose of 500 μg was selected. However, further development was stopped after negative results with a similar immunotherapeutic in patients with NSCLC

Quality of Life in Patients with NSCLC Receiving Maintenance Therapy

Introduction: In the past few years many trials have evaluated the use of maintenance therapy in the treatment of NSCLC stage IV. Both switch as well as continuation maintenance show an improved PFS and overall survival. HRQoL data was only partially published. The aim of this article is to review the published effects of maintenance therapy on HRQoL. Methods: Two PubMed searches were performed using the terms: “maintenance therapy and NSCLC” and “maintenance therapy and NSCLC and HRQoL”. The published data was compared, analysed and evaluated. Results: 272 articles were found dealing with maintenance therapy, and of these 85 articles were found regarding maintenance therapy and HRQoL in NSCLC. Maintenance therapy showed no negative impact on HRQoL but failed to show a real benefit. Some symptoms showed positive trends during maintenance therapy. HRQoL can be used to select patients for maintenance therapy. Conclusions: Maintenance therapy is very safe, improves PFS and OS without impairing HRQoL. Although a positive impact on general QoL could not be demonstrated this is possibly due to the mode of evaluating HRQoL. Patient reported outcomes should be simplified and examined for a longer period of time

Abscopal effect in lung cancer: three case reports and a concise review.

The abscopal effect describes the ability of locally administered radiotherapy to induce systemic antitumor effects. Over the past 40 years, reports on the abscopal effect following conventional radiation have been relatively rare, especially in less immunogenic tumors such as lung cancer. However, with the continued development and use of immunotherapy, reports on the abscopal effect have become increasingly frequent during the last decade. Here, we present three illustrative case reports from our own institution and previous published cases of the abscopal effect in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy. We also present a concise review of the clinical and experimental literature on the abscopal effect in non-small cell lung cancer

Prospects and progress of atezolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy has recently come to the forefront of oncology treatment as a potential means of combating cancer by restoring the body's adaptive cancer-immunity cycle. Atezolizumab is a monoclonal antibody agent that specifically targets programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), a key molecule in the cancer-immunity pathway, to block binding to its receptors PD-1 and B7.1. Areas covered: This review covers the role of atezolizumab in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several studies have reported promising efficacy in this indication. The phase II FIR and BIRCH studies evaluated atezolizumab monotherapy across different lines of therapy in NSCLC selected by PD-L1 expression status. The randomized POPLAR and OAK trials of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in previously treated NSCLC reported improved efficacy in the atezolizumab arm. Several ongoing studies yet to report data are also described and treatment-related adverse events are discussed. Expert opinion: Clinical trials have shown that atezolizumab has a favorable risk-benefit ratio compared with standard chemotherapy in second-line treatment of non-oncogene-driven advanced NSCLC. Promising response rates and survival over 2 years has been reported in the first-line setting; however, more research is needed in this setting and in evaluating combinatorial strategies to treat NSCLC.peerreview_statement: The publishing and review policy for this title is described in its Aims & Scope. aims_and_scope_url: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=iebt20status: publishe

Adverse events reporting in stage III NSCLC trials investigating surgery and radiotherapy

Background Current treatment options for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of different combinations of chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Treatment choices are highly individual decisions, in which adverse events (AEs) are relevant for decision-making. This study aims to analyse reporting of AEs in prospective stage III NSCLC trials, focussing on trials including radiotherapy and/or surgery. Methods PubMed was searched for prospective studies dealing with stage III NSCLC from January 1987 to April 2019. Meta-analyses were screened as a positive control. Pearson's Chi-squared test and smooth kernel distribution were used to estimate distributions. Data was resampled using bootstrapping. Results Out of 1193 initially identified studies, 119 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 had a surgical procedure in any study arm. Grade 3 and 4 AEs were reported in 94.12% and 92.44% of the included studies, respectively. Reporting of grade 5 AEs was provided in 87.39% of cases. Grade 1 and 2 AEs were less commonly reported at 53.78% and 63.03%, respectively. One study did not mention any AEs. Of the 31 treatment arms including any form of surgery, AEs were not reported in 10. Overall, 231 different AE items were reported, only 18 of them were included in at least 20% of the analysed studies. Conclusion Overall, AE reporting in stage III NSCLC was inconsistent and inhomogeneous. Studies including surgical study arms often reported only treatment-related deaths in regards of surgical AEs. Underreporting of AEs prohibits the extraction of patient-relevant information for decision-making and represents a suboptimal use of invested resources.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe