Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer—update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer—update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic option

Metronomic oral vinorelbine in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy: results of the randomized phase II Tempo Lung trial

[Background] To assess the efficacy and safety of a metronomic schedule of oral vinorelbine (mVNR) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients unfit for platinum-based combination chemotherapy.[Patients and methods] This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label phase II study in treatment-naive patients with TNM stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Patients received mVNR at a fixed dose of 50 mg × 3 or standard schedule 60-80 mg/m2 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS; NCI-CTC v4). Main secondary objectives were safety, disease control rate (DCR) without grade 4 toxicity (G4DCR), DCR, PFS, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL).[Results] A total of 167 patients were included, 83 and 84 patients in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. The median G4PFS was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-4.3] and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-2.9), hazard ration (HR) = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.88), P = 0.0068 in favor of metronomic arm; G4DCR was 45.8% and 26.8% in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent in the mVNR arm (25.3% versus 54.4%) mainly owing to a reduction in all grades (15.7% versus 51.9%) and grade 3-4 neutropenia (10.8% versus 42%). PFS was 4.3 (95% CI: 3.3-5.1) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.2) in mVNR and standard arms, respectively. No difference in median OS was observed. QoL was comparable between arms.[Conclusions] Metronomic oral vinorelbine significantly prolonged median G4PFS in advanced NSCLC patients unfit for platinum combinations as first-line treatment. It was associated with a clear reduction in toxicity and may be considered as an important option in this challenging population.Pierre Fabre Médicament was the Sponsor of the study. The study was funded by Pierre Fabre Médicament. Conduct of the study: Pierre Fabre Médicament with the support of Clinipace clinical research organization (CRO) for the monitoring, of C-Med (CRO) for the data management and statistical analyses.Peer reviewe

Analysis of angiogenesis biomarkers for ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from RAISE, a global, randomized, double-blind, phase III study

The phase III RAISE trial (NCT01183780) demonstrated that the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor (VEGFR)-2 binding monoclonal antibody ramucirumab plus 5-fluororuracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI as second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. To identify patients who benefit the most from VEGFR-2 blockade, the RAISE trial design included a prospective and comprehensive biomarker program that assessed the association of biomarkers with ramucirumab efficacy outcomes. Plasma and tumor tissue collection was mandatory. Overall, 1072 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to the addition of ramucirumab or placebo to FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Patients were then randomized 1 : 2, for the biomarker program, to marker exploratory (ME) and marker confirmatory (MC) groups. Analyses were carried out using exploratory assays to assess the correlations of baseline marker levels [VEGF-C, VEGF-D, sVEGFR-1, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3 (plasma), and VEGFR-2 (tumor tissue)] with clinical outcomes. Cox regression analyses were carried out for each candidate biomarker with stratification factor adjustment. Biomarker results were available from >80% (n = 894) of patients. Analysis of the ME subset determined a VEGF-D level of 115 pg/ml was appropriate for high/low subgroup analyses. Evaluation of the combined ME + MC populations found that the median OS in the ramucirumab + FOLFIRI arm compared with placebo + FOLFIRI showed an improvement of 2.4 months in the high VEGF-D subgroup [13.9 months (95% CI 12.5–15.6) versus 11.5 months (95% CI 10.1–12.4), respectively], and a decrease of 0.5 month in the low VEGF-D subgroup [12.6 months (95% CI 10.7–14.0) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.8–17.0), respectively]. PFS results were consistent with OS. No trends were evident with the other antiangiogenic candidate biomarkers. The RAISE biomarker program identified VEGF-D as a potential predictive biomarker for ramucirumab efficacy in second-line mCRC. Development of an assay appropriate for testing in clinical practice is currently ongoing. NCT01183780

Biomarker analysis beyond angiogenesis : RAS/RAF mutation status, tumour sidedness, and second-line ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma from RAISE-a global phase III study

Altres ajuts: This work was supported by Eli Lilly and Company. No grant number is applicable.: Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF -mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF -mutated tumours, although the P -values were not statistically significant. NCT01183780

Report from the OECI Oncology Days 2014

The 2014 OECI Oncology Days was held at the ‘Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta’ Oncology Institute in Cluj, Romania, from 12 to 13 June. The focus of this year’s gathering was on developments in personalised medicine and other treatment advances which have made the cost of cancer care too high for many regions throughout Europe

Clinical activity of a htert (vx-001) cancer vaccine as post-chemotherapy maintenance immunotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer : final results of a randomised phase 2 clinical trial

The cancer vaccine Vx-001, which targets the universal tumour antigen TElomerase Reverse Transcriptase (TERT), can mount specific Vx-001/TERT CD8 + cytotoxic T cells; this immune response is associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A randomised, double blind, phase 2b trial, in HLA-A*201-positive patients with metastatic, TERT-expressing NSCLC, who did not progress after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomised to receive either Vx-001 or placebo. The primary endpoint of the trial was OS. Results: Two hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised and 190 (101 and 89 patients in the placebo and the Vx-001 arm, respectively) were analysed for efficacy. There was not treatment-related toxicity >grade 2. The study did not meet its primary endpoint (median OS 11.3 and 14.3 months for the placebo and the Vx-001, respectively; p = 0.86) whereas the median Time to Treatment Failure (TTF) was 3.5 and 3.6 months, respectively. Disease control for >6months was observed in 30 (33.7%) and 26 (25.7%) patients treated with Vx-001 and placebo, respectively. There was no documented objective CR or PR. Long lasting TERT-specific immune response was observed in 29.2% of vaccinated patients who experienced a significantly longer OS compared to non-responders (21.3 and 13.4 months, respectively; p = 0.004). Vx-001 could induce specific CD8 immune response but failed to meet its primary endpoint. Subsequent studies have to be focused on the identification and treatment of subgroups of patients able to mount an effective immunological response to Vx-001. Clinical trial registration: NCT0193515

Subgroup analysis in RAISE : a randomized, double-blind phase III study of irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab or placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma progression

The RAISE phase III trial demonstrated ramucirumab + FOLFIRI improved survival compared with placebo + FOLFIRI for second-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma patients previously treated with first-line bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Analyses reported here found similar efficacy and safety in patients regardless of KRAS mutational status, time to first-line progression, and age. The RAISE phase III clinical trial demonstrated that ramucirumab + FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844, P = 0.0219] and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.793, P < 0.0005) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI for second-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) patients previously treated with first-line bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Since some patient or disease characteristics could be associated with differential efficacy or safety, prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken. This report focuses on three of the most relevant ones: KRAS status (wild-type versus mutant), age (<65 versus ≥65 years), and time to progression (TTP) on first-line therapy (<6 versus ≥6 months). OS and PFS were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis, with HR determined by the Cox proportional hazards model. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction was tested to determine whether treatment effect was consistent between subgroup pairs. Patients with both wild-type and mutant KRAS benefited from ramucirumab + FOLFIRI treatment over placebo + FOLFIRI (interaction P = 0.526); although numerically, wild-type KRAS patients benefited more (wild-type KRAS : median OS = 14.4 versus 11.9 months, HR = 0.82, P = 0.049; mutant KRAS : median OS = 12.7 versus 11.3 months, HR = 0.89, P = 0.263). Patients with both longer and shorter first-line TTP benefited from ramucirumab (interaction P = 0.9434), although TTP <6 months was associated with poorer OS (TTP ≥6 months: median OS = 14.3 versus 12.5 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.061; TTP <6 months: median OS = 10.4 versus 8.0 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.276). The subgroups of patients ≥65 versus <65 years also derived a similar ramucirumab survival benefit (interaction P = 0.9521) (≥65 years: median OS = 13.8 versus 11.7 months, HR = 0.85, P = 0.156; <65 years: median OS = 13.1 versus 11.9 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.098). The safety profile of ramucirumab + FOLFIRI was similar across subgroups. These analyses revealed similar efficacy and safety among patient subgroups with differing KRAS mutation status, longer or shorter first-line TTP, and age. Ramucirumab is a beneficial addition to second-line FOLFIRI treatment for a wide range of patients with mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0118378

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: results for the non-squamous histology population

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pemetrexed compared to docetaxel in the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for patients with predominantly non-squamous histology in the Spanish healthcare setting.MethodsA Markov model was designed consisting of stable, responsive, progressive disease and death states. Patients could also experience adverse events as long as they received chemotherapy. Clinical inputs were based on an analysis of a phase III clinical trial that identified a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for non-squamous patients treated with pemetrexed compared with docetaxel. Costs were collected from the Spanish healthcare perspective.ResultsOutcomes of the model included total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total life years gained (LYG) and total progression-free survival (PFS). Mean survival was 1.03 years for the pemetrexed arm and 0.89 years in the docetaxel arm; QALYs were 0.52 compared to 0.42. Per-patient lifetime costs were € 34677 and € 32343, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were € 23967 per QALY gained and € 17225 per LYG.ConclusionsPemetrexed as a second-line treatment option for patients with a predominantly non-squamous histology in NSCLC is a cost-effective alternative to docetaxel according to the € 30000/QALY threshold commonly accepted in Spain

Maintenance therapy in NSCLC: why? To whom? Which agent?

Maintenance therapy is emerging as a treatment strategy in the management of advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Initial trials addressing the question of duration of combination chemotherapy failed to show any overall survival benefit for the prolonged administration over a fixed number of cycles with an increased risk for cumulative toxicity. Nowadays several agents with different ways of administration and a different pattern of toxicity have been formally investigated in the maintenance setting. Maintenance strategies include continuing with an agent already present in the induction regimen or switching to a different one. Taking into consideration that no comparative trials of maintenance with different chemotherapy drugs or targeted agents have been conducted, the choice and the duration of maintenance agents is largely empirical. Furthermore, it is still unknown and it remains an open question if this approach needs to be proposed to every patient in the case of partial/complete response or stable disease after the induction therapy. Here, we critically review available data on maintenance treatment, discussing the possibility to tailor the right treatment to the right patient, in an attempt to optimize costs and benefits of an ever-growing panel of different treatment options

Metronomic oral vinorelbine in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy: results of the randomized phase II Tempo Lung trial.

To assess the efficacy and safety of a metronomic schedule of oral vinorelbine (mVNR) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients unfit for platinum-based combination chemotherapy. This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label phase II study in treatment-naive patients with TNM stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Patients received mVNR at a fixed dose of 50 mg × 3 or standard schedule 60-80 mg/m2 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS; NCI-CTC v4). Main secondary objectives were safety, disease control rate (DCR) without grade 4 toxicity (G4DCR), DCR, PFS, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). A total of 167 patients were included, 83 and 84 patients in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. The median G4PFS was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-4.3] and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-2.9), hazard ration (HR) = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.88), P = 0.0068 in favor of metronomic arm; G4DCR was 45.8% and 26.8% in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent in the mVNR arm (25.3% versus 54.4%) mainly owing to a reduction in all grades (15.7% versus 51.9%) and grade 3-4 neutropenia (10.8% versus 42%). PFS was 4.3 (95% CI: 3.3-5.1) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.2) in mVNR and standard arms, respectively. No difference in median OS was observed. QoL was comparable between arms. Metronomic oral vinorelbine significantly prolonged median G4PFS in advanced NSCLC patients unfit for platinum combinations as first-line treatment. It was associated with a clear reduction in toxicity and may be considered as an important option in this challenging population