Safety and Efficacy of Bevacizumab Plus Standard-of-Care Treatment Beyond Disease Progression in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The AvaALL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bevacizumab treatment beyond progression has been investigated in breast and metastatic colorectal cancers. Avastin in All Lines Lung (AvaALL) is the first randomized phase 3 study of bevacizumab across multiple lines of treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of continuous bevacizumab treatment beyond first progression in NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: AvaALL was a randomized, open-label, phase 3b trial, conducted from 2011 to 2015 in 123 centers worldwide. Patients with nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with first-line bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy and at least 2 cycles of bevacizumab maintenance were randomized (1:1) at first progression to receive bevacizumab plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. Interventions: Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days) and/or investigator's choice of SOC. For subsequent lines, patients treated with bevacizumab received SOC with or without bevacizumab; the SOC arm received SOC only. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival from first to second (PFS2) and third progression (PFS3), time to second (TTP2) and third progression (TTP3), and safety. Results: Between June 2011 and January 2015, 485 patients (median age, 63.0 years [range, 26-84 years]; 293 [60.4%] male) were randomized. Median OS was not significantly longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 11.9 (90% CI, 10.2-13.7) vs 10.2 (90% CI, 8.6-11.9) months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 90% CI, 0.71-1.00; P = .104). Median PFS2 was numerically longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 5.5 (90% CI, 4.2-5.7) vs 4.0 (90% CI, 3.4-4.3) months (HR, 0.83; 90% CI, 0.70-0.98; P = .06). Median PFS3 appeared longer with bevacizumab plus SOC vs SOC alone: 4.0 (90% CI, 2.9-4.5) vs 2.6 (90% CI, 2.3-2.9) months (HR, 0.63; 90% CI, 0.49-0.83), as did TTP2 and TTP3. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with bevacizumab plus SOC (186 [76.5%]) vs SOC alone (140 [60.3%]). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: The primary end point was not met; however, OS was underpowered according to initial statistical assumptions. Continued therapy beyond first progression led to improved PFS3 (but not PFS2), TTP2, and TTP3. Although a result with P = .06 for PFS2 would conventionally be considered significant at a specified 2-sided α of .10, in the absence of adjustments for multiplicity, this result could be a chance finding. No new safety signals were identified with bevacizumab treatment beyond progression. Trial Registration: clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2010-022645-14; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01351415.

Prevalence and clinical association of MET gene overexpression and amplification in patients with NSCLC: Results from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) Lungscape project.

INTRODUCTION: In a well-defined NSCLC cohort of the ETOP Lungscape program, we explored the epidemiology of IHC MET overexpression and amplification, their inter-correlation, and their association to outcome. METHODS: Resected NSCLC were assessed for MET gene copy number (GCN) and expression using silver in-situ hybridization (SISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) on TMAs in a multicenter setting. MET amplification was defined as MET/centromere ratio≥2 (with average MET GCN≥4), high MET GCN as CGN≥5 and MET IHC+ as ≥2+ intensity in ≥50% of tumor cells. A total of 182 MET IHC+ and EGFR/KRAS WT tumors were analyzed for METex14 skipping mutation. RESULTS: MET IHC+ was found in 23.8% of 2432 patients, significantly associated with female gender, small tumor size, and adenocarcinoma histology. We observed a high inter-laboratory variability in IHC and SISH analysis. MET amplification prevailed in 4.6% and MET GCN≥5 in 4.1% of 1572 patients. MET amplification and MET GCN≥5 were not significantly associated with any tumor characteristics or stage. Both were significantly associated with IHC MET positivity (p<0.001). METex14 skipping mutation prevailed in 5 of 182 (2.7%) MET IHC+ WT EGFR/KRAS NSCLC, 4 of which within the 88 adenocarcinomas (4.5%). No association of IHC MET overexpression, SISH MET amplification or high MET GCN was found with OS, RFS or TTR. CONCLUSION: MET overexpression is found in 23.8% of surgically resected NSCLC. MET amplification prevails in 4.6% and is associated with MET overexpression. Both have no influence on prognosis. The large inter-laboratory variability in IHC highlights the challenge of MET IHC analysis in routine practice.

Validation of an electronic program for pathologist training in the interpretation of a complex companion diagnostic immunohistochemical assay.

Companion diagnostics assay interpretation can select patients with the greatest targeted therapy benefits. We present the results from a prospective study demonstrating that pathologists can effectively learn immunohistochemical assay-interpretation skills from digital image-based electronic training (e-training). In this study, e-training was used to train board-certified pathologists to evaluate non-small cell lung carcinoma for eligibility for treatment with onartuzumab, a MET-inhibiting agent. The training program mimicked the live training that was previously validated in clinical trials for onartuzumab. A digital interface was developed for pathologists to review high-resolution, static images of stained slides. Sixty-four pathologists practicing in the United States enrolled while blinded to the type of training. After training, both groups completed a mandatory final test using glass slides. The results indicated both training modalities to be effective. Overall, 80.6% of e-trainees and 72.7% of live trainees achieved passing scores (at least 85%) on the final test. All study participants reported that their training experience was "good" and that they had received sufficient information to determine the adequacy of case slide staining to score each case. This study established that an e-training program conducted under highly controlled conditions can provide pathologists with the skills necessary to interpret a complex assay and that these skills can be equivalent to those achieved with face-to-face training using conventional microscopy. Programs of this type are scalable for global distribution and offer pathologists the potential for readily accessible and robust training in new companion diagnostic assays linked to novel, targeted, adjuvant therapies for cancer patients.

Results from a pilot Phase I trial of gefitinib combined with docetaxel and estramustine in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib, which is an orally active epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated activity against hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) in preclinical studies. In this pilot Phase I trial, the authors evaluated the tolerability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of gefitinib combined with estramustine and docetaxel in patients with HRPC. METHODS: Patients received gefitinib (at a dose of 250 mg/day or 500 mg/day) on each day of a 21-day treatment cycle. Docetaxel (at a dose of 60 mg/m(2)) was administered on Day 1, and estramustine (at a dose of 280 mg) was administered 3 times daily on Days 1 through 5. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were recruited at each gefitinib dose level. The most common adverse events observed were consistent with the known profiles of gefitinib, docetaxel, and estramustine. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Adverse events considered to be gefitinib related included diarrhea (n = 23 patients), rash (n = 8 patients), nausea (n = 7 patients), dry skin (n = 6 patients), and emesis (n = 6 patients). Overall, 9 of 22 evaluable patients (40.9%) experienced a pain response. and 9 of 30 patients (30%) had a prostate-specific antigen response. A partial objective tumor response was demonstrated in 1 of 13 evaluable patients (7.7%) in each dose group; the median time to progression for both doses combined was 185 days (range, 28-233 days). Data comparisons within individual patients suggested that docetaxel and estramustine had no effect on gefitinib steady-state levels. Gefitinib had no effect on docetaxel exposure at the 250-mg dose but decreased exposure at the 500-mg dose. However, gefitinib may increase exposure to estramustine, particularly at the 500 mg/day dose. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that gefitinib combined with estramustine and docetaxel had acceptable and predictable tolerability. However, it is unclear whether gefitinib provides an additional clinical benefit over docetaxel and estramustine alone.