The effect of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for young stage III NSCLC patients: Subgroup analyses of the NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 study

Background: The NVALT-11/DLCRG-02 phase III study compared PCI to observation after chemo-radiotherapy (RT) for stage III NSCLC and showed a significant decrease in the cumulative incidence of symptomatic brain metastases (BM) in the PCI arm at two years (7% vs 27% [HR 0.23]). We here performed exploratory subgroup analyses. Methods: Two year cumulative incidence rates were calculated and competing risk regression, with death of any cause as competing risk, was used to examine the time to symptomatic BM in the following subgr

Cemiplimab in locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma:prospective real-world data from the DRUG Access Protocol

Background: The DRUG Access Protocol provides patients with cancer access to registered anti-cancer drugs that are awaiting reimbursement in the Netherlands and simultaneously collects prospective real-world data (RWD). Here, we present RWD from PD-1 blocker cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC; mCSCC). Methods: Patients with laCSCC or mCSCC received cemiplimab 350 mg fixed dose every three weeks. Primary endpoints were objective clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks, physician-assessed CBR, defined as clinician's documentation of improved disease or SD based on evaluation of all available clinical parameters at 16 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), and safety, defined as grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring up to 30 days after last drug administration. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Findings: Between February 2021 and December 2022, 151 patients started treatment. Objective and physician-assessed CBR were 54.3% (95% CI, 46.0–62.4) and 59.6% (95% CI, 51.3–67.5), respectively. ORR was 35.1% (95% CI, 27.5–43.3). After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, median DoR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 12.2 (95% CI, 7.0-not reached) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 18.8-not reached), respectively. Sixty-eight TRAEs occurred in 29.8% of patients. Most commonly reported TRAE was a kidney transplant rejection (9.5%). Interpretation: Cemiplimab proved highly effective and safe in this real-world cohort of patients with laCSCC or mCSCC, confirming its therapeutic value in the treatment of advanced CSCC in daily clinical practice. Funding: The DRUG Access Protocol is supported by all participating pharmaceutical companies: Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.</p

Cemiplimab in locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma:prospective real-world data from the DRUG Access Protocol

Background: The DRUG Access Protocol provides patients with cancer access to registered anti-cancer drugs that are awaiting reimbursement in the Netherlands and simultaneously collects prospective real-world data (RWD). Here, we present RWD from PD-1 blocker cemiplimab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (laCSCC; mCSCC). Methods: Patients with laCSCC or mCSCC received cemiplimab 350 mg fixed dose every three weeks. Primary endpoints were objective clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks, physician-assessed CBR, defined as clinician's documentation of improved disease or SD based on evaluation of all available clinical parameters at 16 weeks, objective response rate (ORR), and safety, defined as grade ≥ 3 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) occurring up to 30 days after last drug administration. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Findings: Between February 2021 and December 2022, 151 patients started treatment. Objective and physician-assessed CBR were 54.3% (95% CI, 46.0–62.4) and 59.6% (95% CI, 51.3–67.5), respectively. ORR was 35.1% (95% CI, 27.5–43.3). After a median follow-up of 15.2 months, median DoR was not reached. Median PFS and OS were 12.2 (95% CI, 7.0-not reached) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 18.8-not reached), respectively. Sixty-eight TRAEs occurred in 29.8% of patients. Most commonly reported TRAE was a kidney transplant rejection (9.5%). Interpretation: Cemiplimab proved highly effective and safe in this real-world cohort of patients with laCSCC or mCSCC, confirming its therapeutic value in the treatment of advanced CSCC in daily clinical practice. Funding: The DRUG Access Protocol is supported by all participating pharmaceutical companies: Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi.</p

IHC-based Ki67 as response biomarker to tamoxifen in breast cancer window trials enrolling premenopausal women

Window studies are gaining traction to assess (molecular) changes in short timeframes. Decreased tumor cell positivity for the proliferation marker Ki67 is often used as a proxy for treatment response. Immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based Ki67 on tissue from neo-adjuvant trials was previously reported to be predictive for long-term response to endocrine therapy for breast cancer in postmenopausal women, but none of these trials enrolled premenopausal women. Nonetheless, the marker is being used on this subpopulation. We compared pathologist assessed IHC-based Ki67 in samples from pre- and postmenopausal women in a neo-adjuvant, endocrine therapy focused trial (NCT00738777), randomized between tamoxifen, anastrozole, or fulvestrant. These results were compared with (1) IHC-based Ki67 scoring by AI, (2) mitotic figures, (3) mRNA-based Ki67, (4) five independent gene expression signatures capturing proliferation, and (5) blood levels for tamoxifen and its metabolites as well as estradiol. Upon tamoxifen, IHC-based Ki67 levels were decreased in both pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer patients, which was confirmed using mRNA-based cell proliferation markers. The magnitude of decrease of Ki67 IHC was smaller in pre- versus postmenopausal women. We found a direct relationship between post-treatment estradiol levels and the magnitude of the Ki67 decrease in tumors. These data suggest IHC-based Ki67 may be an appropriate biomarker for tamoxifen response in premenopausal breast cancer patients, but anti-proliferative effect size depends on estradiol levels.</p

Selecting the optimal position of CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer - the SONIA study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Combining cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors with endocrine therapy is an effective strategy to improve progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. There is a lack of comparative data to help clinicians decide if CDK4/6 inhibitors can best be added to first- or second-line endocrine therapy. Improvement in median progression-free survival in first-line studies is larger than in second-line studies, but CDK4/6 inhibitors have not consistently shown to improve overall survival or quality of life. They do come with added toxicity and costs, and many patients have lasting disease remission on endocrine therapy alone. No subgroup has been identified to select patients who are most likely to benefit from the addition of CDK4/6 inhibition in any line of treatment. Altogether, these factors make that the optimal strategy for using CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: The SONIA study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized phase III study in patients with HR+/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either strategy A (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor combined with CDK4/6 inhibition, followed on progression by fulvestrant) or strategy B (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, followed on progression by fulvestrant combined with CDK4/6 inhibition). The primary objective is to test whether strategy A is more effective than strategy B. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to second objective progression (PFS2). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Five-hundred seventy-four events yield 89% power to show that strategy A has statistically significant, clinically meaningful superior PFS2 (according to ESMO-MCBS) in a log-rank test at the two-sided 95% confidence level. Given an accrual period of 42 months and an additional 18 months follow-up, inclusion of 1050 evaluable patients is required. DISCUSSION: This study design represents daily clinical practice, and the results will aid clinicians in deciding when adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy will benefit their patients most. Additional biomarker analyses may help to optimize patient selection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03425838 (8 February 2018). EudraCT-number: 2017-002334-23 (29 September 2017)

Randomised controlled trial of first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) versus intercalated TKI with chemotherapy for EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer

Introduction Previous studies have shown interference between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in the cell cycle, thus reducing efficacy. In this randomised controlled trial we investigated whether intercalated erlotinib with chemotherapy was superior compared to erlotinib alone in untreated advanced EGFR-mutated nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods Treatment-naïve patients with an activating EGFR mutation, ECOG performance score of 0–3 and adequate organ function were randomly assigned 1:1 to either four cycles of cisplatin-pemetrexed with intercalated erlotinib (day 2–16 out of 21 days per cycle) followed by pemetrexed and erlotinib maintenance (CPE) or erlotinib monotherapy. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival, objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results Between April 2014 and September 2016, 22 patients were randomised equally into both arms; the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 64 months. Median PFS was 13.7 months (95% CI 5.2–18.8) for CPE and 10.3 months (95% CI 7.1–15.5; hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.25–1.57) for erlotinib monotherapy; when compensating for number of days receiving erlotinib, PFS of the CPE arm was superior (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07–0.83; p=0.02). ORR was 64% for CPE versus 55% for erlotinib monotherapy. Median overall survival was 31.7 months (95% CI 21.8–61.9 months) for CPE compared to 17.2 months (95% CI 11.5–45.5 months) for erlotinib monotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.22–1.41 months). Patients treated with CPE had higher rates of treatment-related fatigue, anorexia, weight loss and renal toxicity. Conclusion Intercalating erlotinib with cisplatin-pemetrexed provides a longer PFS compared to erlotinib alone in EGFR-mutated NSCLC at the expense of more toxicity

Switch-maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma (NVALT19):an investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Almost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847. Findings Between March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36.5 months (95% CI 34.2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6.2 months [95% CI 4.6-8.7]) than in the supportive care group (3.2 months [2.8-4.1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.33-0.71]; p=0.0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0.49 [0.33-0.72]; p=0.0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 ( 52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection. Interpretation Switch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic cranial irradiation in stage III non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION In stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) reduces the brain metastases incidence and prolongs the progression-free survival without improving overall survival. PCI increases the risk of toxicity and is currently not adopted in routine care. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI compared with no PCI in stage III NSCLC from a Dutch societal perspective. METHODS A cohort partitioned survival model was developed based on individual patient data from three randomized phase III trials (N = 670). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were estimated over a lifetime time horizon. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80,000 per QALY was adopted. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to address parameter uncertainty and to explore what parameters had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS PCI was more effective and costly (0.443 QALYs, €10,123) than no PCI, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €22,843 per QALY gained. The probability of PCI being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of €80,000 per QALY was 93%. The probability of PCI gaining three and six additional months of life were 76% and 56%. The scenario analysis adding durvalumab increased the ICER to €35,159 per QALY gained. Using alternative survival distributions had little impact on the ICER. Assuming fewer PCI fractions and excluding indirect costs decreased the ICER to €18,263 and €5554 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION PCI is cost-effective compared to no PCI in stage III NSCLC, and could therefore, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, be considered in routine care

Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment

Purpose: Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers. Experimental Design: In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency–approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). Results: Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup. Conclusions: Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer