Prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells and CXCR4 expression as biomarkers for a CXCR4 peptide antagonist in combination with carboplatin-etoposide in small cell lung cancer: exploratory analysis of a phase II study.

Background Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 4 (CXCR4) expression in CTCs and tumor tissue were evaluated as prognostic or predictive markers of CXCR4 peptide antagonist LY2510924 plus carboplatin-etoposide (CE) versus CE in extensive-stage disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Methods This exploratory analysis of a phase II study evaluated CXCR4 expression in baseline tumor tissue and peripheral blood CTCs and in post-treatment CTCs. Optimum cutoff values were determined for CTC counts and CXCR4 expression in tumors and CTCs as predictors of survival outcome. Kaplan-Meier estimates and hazard ratios were used to determine biomarker prognostic and predictive values. Results There was weak positive correlation at baseline between CXCR4 expression in tumor tissue and CTCs. Optimum cutoff values were H-score ≥ 210 for CXCR4+ tumor, ≥7% CTCs with CXCR4 expression (CXCR4+ CTCs), and ≥6 CTCs/7.5 mL blood. Baseline H-score for CXCR4+ tumor was not prognostic of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Baseline CXCR4+ CTCs ≥7% was prognostic of shorter PFS. CTCs ≥6 at baseline and cycle 2, day 1 were prognostic of shorter PFS and OS. None of the biomarkers at their respective optimum cutoffs was predictive of treatment response of LY2510924 plus CE versus CE. Conclusions In patients with ED-SCLC, baseline CXCR4 expression in tumor tissue was not prognostic of survival or predictive of LY2510924 treatment response. Baseline CXCR4+ CTCs ≥7% was prognostic of shorter PFS. CTC count ≥6 at baseline and after 1 cycle of treatment were prognostic of shorter PFS and OS

final overall survival and other efficacy and safety results from ascend 3 phase ii study of ceritinib in alki naive patients with alk rearranged nsclc

Abstract Introduction The phase II, single-arm ASCEND-3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor (ALKi)–naive patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC who had received at least three previous lines of chemotherapy. Here, we report the final efficacy and safety results. Methods Eligible patients (including those with asymptomatic or neurologically stable brain metastases) received oral ceritinib (750 mg/day, fasted). The primary end point was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points were Blinded Independent Review Committee–assessed ORR; investigator- and Blinded Independent Review Committee–assessed overall intracranial response rate, duration of response, time to response, disease control rate, and progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and safety. Exploratory end points included patient-reported outcomes. Results Of the 124 patients enrolled, 122 (98.4%) had received previous antineoplastic medications (31 patients [25.0%] received at least three regimens), and 49 (39.5%) had baseline brain metastases. The median follow-up time (data cutoff: January 22, 2018) was 52.1 (range, 48.4–60.1) months. The investigator-assessed ORR was 67.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.8–75.9), and the median PFS was 16.6 months (95% CI: 11.0–23.2). The median OS was 51.3 months (95% CI: 42.7–55.3). Most common adverse events (all grades, ≥60% of patients, all-causality) were diarrhea (85.5%), nausea (78.2%), and vomiting (71.8%). Overall, 18 patients (14.5%) had an adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. Health-related quality of life was maintained during ceritinib treatment. Conclusions Ceritinib exhibited prolonged and clinically meaningful OS, PFS, and duration of response in chemotherapy-pretreated (at least three lines), ALKi-naive patients with ALK+ NSCLC. The safety profile was consistent with that reported in previous studies

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

Nivolumab Monotherapy and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Recurrent Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the CheckMate 032 Randomized Cohort

Abstract Introduction Nivolumab monotherapy is approved in the United States for third-line or later metastatic small cell lung cancer based on pooled data from nonrandomized and randomized cohorts of the multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 trial of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032; NCT01928394). We report updated results, including long-term overall survival (OS), from the randomized cohort. Methods Patients with small cell lung cancer and disease progression after one to two prior chemotherapy regimens were randomized 3:2 to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. Results Overall, 147 patients received nivolumab and 96 nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Minimum follow-up for ORR/progression-free survival/safety was 11.9 months (nivolumab) and 11.2 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). ORR increased with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (21.9% versus 11.6% with nivolumab; odds ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–4.26; p = 0.03). For long-term OS, minimum follow-up was 29.0 months (nivolumab) versus 28.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab); median (95% confidence interval) OS was 5.7 (3.8–7.6) versus 4.7 months (3.1–8.3). Twenty-four–month OS rates were 17.9% (nivolumab) and 16.9% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event rates were 12.9% (nivolumab) versus 37.5% (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and treatment-related deaths were n =1 versus n = 3, respectively. Conclusions Whereas ORR (primary endpoint) was higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab, OS was similar between groups. In each group, OS remained encouraging with long-term follow-up. Toxicities were more common with combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy

nab-Paclitaxel–Based Therapy in Underserved Patient Populations: The ABOUND.PS2 Study in Patients With NSCLC and a Performance Status of 2

IntroductionThe phase II ABOUND.PS2 study (NCT02289456) assessed safety/tolerability of a first-line modified nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2.MethodsChemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and ECOG PS 2 received four cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 day 1 q3w (induction). Patients without progression received nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 q3w) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint: percentage of patients discontinuing induction due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).Results11/40 treated patients (27.5%; 95% CI, 14.60–43.89) discontinued chemotherapy induction due to TEAEs; 16/40 (40.0%) continued nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Median progression-free and overall survival were 4.4 (95% CI, 2.99–7.00) and 7.7 (95% CI, 4.93–13.17) months. Grade 3/4 TEAEs during induction included neutropenia (22.5%), anemia (17.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (2.5%).ConclusionThis nab-paclitaxel–based regimen was tolerable in patients with advanced NSCLC and ECOG PS 2, with efficacy comparable to historical chemotherapy data

Does This Patient Have a Family History of Cancer? An Evidence-Based Analysis of the Accuracy of Family Cancer History

Context: A family history of certain cancers is associated with an increased risk of developing cancer. Both cancer screening and genetic services referral decisions are often based on self-reported pedigree information. Objective: To determine the accuracy of self-reported family cancer history information. Data Sources English-language articles were retrieved by searching MEDLINE (1966-June 2004) using Medical Subject Headings family, genetic predisposition to disease, medical history taking, neoplasm, and reproducibility of results. Additional articles were identified through bibliography searches. Study Selection: Original studies in which investigators validated self-reported family history by reviewing the identified relatives’ medical records, death certificate, or cancer registry information were included, as well as studies that evaluated breast, colon, ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers. Data Extraction: Two of the 3 investigators independently reviewed and abstracted data for estimating the likelihood ratios (LRs) of self-reported family cancer history information. Only data from studies that evaluated both positive and negative family cancer histories were included within the analyses. A total of 14 studies met the search criteria and were included in the review. Data Synthesis: For patients without a personal history of cancer, the positive and negative LRs of a family history of the following cancers in a first-degree relative were 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4-81.0) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.10-0.63) for colon cancer; 8.9 (95% CI, 5.4-15.0) and 0.20 (95% CI, 0.08-0.49) for breast cancer; 14.0 (95% CI, 2.2-83.4) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.31-1.52) for endometrial cancer; 34.0 (95% CI, 5.7-202.0) and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.13-2.10) for ovarian cancer; and 12.3 (95% CI, 6.5-24.0) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.55) for prostate cancer, respectively. Positive predictive values tended to be better in articles concerning first-degree relatives compared with second-degree relatives. Conclusions: Patient-reported family cancer histories for first-degree relatives are accurate and valuable for breast and colon cancer risk assessments. Negative family history reports for ovarian and endometrial cancers are less useful, although the prevalence of these malignancies within families is low