Unmet needs in squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: potential role for immunotherapy

Squamous cell carcinoma of the lung accounts for 20–30% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Despite the differences in disease characteristics between squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, both have historically been treated similarly in the clinic. Recently approved drugs have revealed differences in activity and safety profiles across histologic subtypes and have applicability in treating non-squamous, but not typically squamous, NSCLC. Exploration of immune checkpoints—co-inhibitory molecules used to regulate immune responses—has resulted in novel immunotherapies designed to interrupt signaling through the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 or programmed cell death protein-1 pathways on lymphocytes. Modulation of these pathways can lead to restored antitumor immune responses, and preliminary evidence shows that agents targeting these pathways have activity in lung cancer, including squamous NSCLC

Treatment Paradigms for Advanced Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Era of Multiple Lines of Therapy

Abstract:: The duration of first-line and the timing of second-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer has been an area of recent investigation. Five trials have been performed that have investigated shorter (3–4 cycles) versus longer duration of platinum-based therapy; four trials revealed an equivalent overall survival with the shorter duration of therapy, and one trial revealed superior survival with the longer duration of therapy. The toxicity and quality of life data has either been equivalent or favored the shorter duration of therapy. Two trials have investigated the timing of a second-line therapy after completion of four cycles of platinum-based therapy versus the standard treatment paradigm of initiating second-line therapy upon disease progression. Both of these trials have revealed a statistically significant improvement in the progression-free survival, and a trend towards improved survival for the earlier use of second-line therapy. Only 50 to 60% of patients on the standard treatment arm initiated second-line therapy, and the promising results observed are most likely related to the fact that a higher percentage of patients received second-line therapy on the experimental arm. Several trials have investigated maintenance chemotherapy, and these trials have not revealed a survival benefit probably due to the fact that many patients experience disease progression or unacceptable toxicity during the initial or maintenance therapy. The addition of a targeted agent (bevacizumab or cetuximab) to the initial chemotherapy and the continuation of the targeted agent after completion of the chemotherapy have yielded superior overall survival in comparison to chemotherapy alone. The incremental benefit of the maintenance therapy with the targeted agent is unknown

MEK inhibition in non-small cell lung cancer

KRAS mutations are the most common mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with adenocarcinoma histology. KRAS mutations result in the activation of the RAF-MEK-ERK pathway, and agents that target RAF-MEK-ERK pathways have been investigated in KRAS mutant NSCLC. The two agents furthest in development are selumetinib and trametinib. Trametinib has greater binding for the MEK1/2 allosteric site, and generally has superior pharmacokinetics. A randomized phase II trial of docetaxel with and without selumetinib revealed that the combination resulted numerically superior overall survival, and a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and objective response rate. However, a concerning rate of hospital admission, grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia was observed with the combination. Trials have investigated MEK inhibitors as single agents, and in combination with erlotinib or chemotherapy. The data do not support the further development of single agent MEK inhibitors or in combination with erlotinib. The activity of MEK inhibitors appears to be similar in patients with KRAS mutant and wild-type NSCLC suggesting KRAS mutation status is not a reliable biomarker for efficacy. It is possible that mutations of genes in addition to KRAS mutations impact the activity of MEK inhibitors, or specific subsets of KRAS mutations may be resistant or susceptible to MEK inhibition. Other potential explanations are gene amplifications, alternative RNA splicing of genes resulting in activation of their protein products, and deregulation of noncoding RNAs and consequent altered protein expression

Annual Review of Advances in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Research: A Report for the Year 2010

No Abstract

Third-generation chemotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis [2]

No Abstract

Phase II Trial of Paclitaxel and Cisplatin in Patients with Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9430

Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) trial 9430 was a randomized phase II trial which investigated the safety and activity of four novel doublets in untreated extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The results of the paclitaxel and cisplatin arm have not been reported

Beliefs among Physicians in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

No Abstract

Beliefs among Physicians in the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approach to Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

No Abstract

Alliance Foundation Trial 09: A randomized, multicenter, phase 2 trial evaluating two sequences of pembrolizumab and standard platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION: The sequence of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab may affect antitumor immune response and efficacy of immunotherapy. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, phase 2 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of two sequences of chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in patients with stage 4 NSCLC. Both arms were considered investigational, and the study used a pick a winner design. The primary end point was objective response rate by independent radiologic review after eight cycles (24 wk). Patients were randomized 1:1 to arm A (chemotherapy for four cycles followed by pembrolizumab for four cycles) or arm B (pembrolizumab for four cycles followed by chemotherapy for four cycles). Patients in both arms without disease progression after the initial eight cycles continued pembrolizumab until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum of 2 years. RESULTS: From March 2016 to July 2018, a total of 90 eligible patients were randomized (43 patients to arm A and 47 patients to arm B). The objective response rate at 24 weeks in arms A and B was 39.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 24.9%-54.1 %) and 40.4 % (95 % CI: 26.4%-54.5 %), respectively ( CONCLUSIONS: Additional evaluation of either sequence in a phase 3 trial is not warranted