Durvalumab in Combination With Olaparib Versus Durvalumab Alone as Maintenance Therapy in Metastatic NSCLC: The Phase 2 ORION Study.

INTRODUCTION: Increased DNA damage triggered through poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition may modify tumor immunogenicity, sensitizing tumors to immunotherapy. ORION (NCT03775486) evaluated the combination of olaparib with durvalumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: ORION is a phase 2, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, international study. Patients with metastatic NSCLC (without activating EGFR or ALK aberrations) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were enrolled to receive initial therapy with durvalumab (1500 mg intravenously; every 3 wk) plus platinum-based chemotherapy for four cycles. Patients without disease progression were then randomized (1:1) to maintenance durvalumab (1500 mg; every 4 wk) plus either olaparib (300 mg orally) or placebo (both twice daily); randomization was stratified by objective response during initial therapy and tumor histologic type. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). RESULTS: Between January 2019 and February 2020, 269 of 401 patients who received initial therapy were randomized. As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up: 9.6 mo), median PFS was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval: 5.3-7.9) with durvalumab plus olaparib versus 5.3 months (3.7-5.8) with durvalumab plus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.02, p = 0.074). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of durvalumab and olaparib. Anemia was the most common adverse event (AE) with durvalumab plus olaparib (26.1% versus 8.2% with durvalumab plus placebo). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs (34.3% versus 17.9%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (10.4% versus 4.5%) was numerically higher with durvalumab plus olaparib versus durvalumab plus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with durvalumab in combination with olaparib was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus durvalumab alone, although numerical improvement was observed.

Veliparib in Combination with Carboplatin and Etoposide in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of oral PARP inhibitor veliparib, plus carboplatin and etoposide in patients with treatment-naïve, extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to veliparib [240 mg twice daily (BID) for 14 days] plus chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance (400 mg BID; veliparib throughout), veliparib plus chemotherapy followed by placebo (veliparib combination only), or placebo plus chemotherapy followed by placebo (control). Patients received 4-6 cycles of combination therapy, then maintenance until unacceptable toxicity/progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with veliparib throughout versus control. RESULTS: Overall (N = 181), PFS was improved with veliparib throughout versus control [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 80% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.88; P = 0.059]; median PFS was 5.8 and 5.6 months, respectively. There was a trend toward improved PFS with veliparib throughout versus control in SLFN11-positive patients (HR, 0.6; 80% CI, 0.36-0.97). Median overall survival (OS) was 10.1 versus 12.4 months in the veliparib throughout and control arms, respectively (HR, 1.43; 80% CI, 1.09-1.88). Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced by 82%, 88%, and 68% of patients in the veliparib throughout, veliparib combination-only and control arms, most commonly hematologic. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib plus platinum chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance demonstrated improved PFS as first-line treatment for ED-SCLC with an acceptable safety profile, but there was no corresponding benefit in OS. Further investigation is warranted to define the role of biomarkers in this setting.

Exploratory analysis of front-line therapies in REVEL: a randomised phase 3 study of ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel for the treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease. Front-line therapy may affect responses to subsequent treatment regimens, thus influencing second-line therapy decision making. In the randomised phase 3 REVEL study, second-line ramucirumab plus docetaxel (ram+doc) versus docetaxel (doc) improved survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC. We explore efficacy, safety and quality-of-life (QoL) in REVEL based on front-line therapy. METHODS: Patients were grouped by specific front-line therapy received. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, safety and QoL were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards modelling were used; frequencies reported in percentages. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of 1253 patients were generally well balanced between treatment arms within each front-line therapy subgroup. For patients with non-squamous disease (n=912), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane (n=227; 25%) or pemetrexed (n=449; 49%), with (n=172; 19%) or without bevacizumab. For patients with squamous disease (n=328), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus gemcitabine (n=176; 54%) or a taxane (n=69; 21%). A highly selected subgroup (n=127; 14%) received pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy. Ram+doc improved median OS and PFS versus doc across front-line therapy subgroups, as reflected by HRs ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 and 0.66 to 0.92, respectively, similar to results in the overall intention-to-treat cohort (HRs: 0.86 and 0.76, respectively). High-grade treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia and hypertension) were generally higher in ram+doc-treated patients relative to doc-treated patients regardless of front-line therapy. No clear differences in safety or QoL were seen across front-line therapy subgroups; outcomes were consistent with those reported in the overall intention-to-treat cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this exploratory analysis suggest that second-line ram+doc may be effective regardless of prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane, pemetrexed, gemcitabine or bevacizumab. Overall, ram+doc is clinically beneficial across a wide range of patients with metastatic NSCLC who have progressed after various front-line therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01168973.

Successful treatment of azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis in a bottlenose dolphin with high-dose posaconazole.

Invasive aspergillosis due to azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus is difficult to manage. We describe a case of azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis in a female bottlenose dolphin, who failed to respond to voriconazole and posaconazole therapy. As intravenous therapy was precluded, high dose posaconazole was initiated aimed at achieving trough levels exceeding 3 mg/l. Posaconazole serum levels of 3-9.5 mg/l were achieved without significant side-effects. Follow-up bronchoscopy and computed tomography showed complete resolution of the lesions.

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus ramucirumab or placebo as second-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (REVEL), we enrolled patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC who had progressed during or after a first-line platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a centralised, interactive voice-response system (stratified by sex, region, performance status, and previous maintenance therapy [yes vs no]) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and either ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo on day 1 of a 21 day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all patients allocated to treatment. We assessed adverse events according to treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01168973. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 24, 2013, we screened 1825 patients, of whom 1253 patients were randomly allocated to treatment. Median overall survival was 10·5 months (IQR 5·1-21·2) for 628 patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel and 9·1 months (4·2-18·0) for 625 patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·75-0·98; p=0·023). Median progression-free survival was 4·5 months (IQR 2·3-8·3) for the ramucirumab group compared with 3·0 months (1·4-6·9) for the control group (0·76, 0·68-0·86; p<0·0001). We noted treatment-emergent adverse events in 613 (98%) of 627 patients in the ramucirumab safety population and 594 (95%) of 618 patients in the control safety population. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (306 patients [49%] in the ramucirumab group vs 246 [40%] in the control group), febrile neutropenia (100 [16%] vs 62 [10%]), fatigue (88 [14%] vs 65 [10%]), leucopenia (86 [14%] vs 77 [12%]), and hypertension (35 [6%] vs 13 [2%]). The numbers of deaths from adverse events (31 [5%] vs 35 [6%]) and grade 3 or worse pulmonary haemorrhage (eight [1%] vs eight [1%]) did not differ between groups. Toxicities were manageable with appropriate dose reductions and supportive care. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus docetaxel improves survival as second-line treatment of patients with stage IV NSCLC. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Thalidomide versus active supportive care for maintenance in patients with malignant mesothelioma after first-line chemotherapy (NVALT 5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Standard chemotherapy does not lead to long-term survival in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Malignant pleural mesothelioma is strongly dependent on vasculature with high vessel counts and high concentrations of serum vascular growth factors. Thalidomide has shown antiangiogenic activity, and we hypothesised that its use in the maintenance setting could improve outcomes. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study, eligible patients had proven malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma and had received a minimum of four cycles of first-line treatment containing at least pemetrexed, with or without cisplatin or carboplatin, and had not progressed on this treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by previous first-line chemotherapy, histological subtype, and recruiting hospital) to receive thalidomide 200 mg per day (including a 2 week run in of 100 mg per day) plus active supportive care or active supportive care alone until disease progression. Patients were required to be registered and to start treatment with thalidomide within 10 weeks after the end of the first-line chemotherapy. Thalidomide was given for a maximum of 1 year or until unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression. The primary analyses were by intention to treat. The study is registered, ISRCTN13632914. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2004, and Dec 23, 2009, we randomly assigned 222 patients, 111 in each group (one patient on active supportive care later withdrew consent and was excluded from analyses). At the time of this final analysis, median follow-up was 33.1 months (IQR 22.3-66.8), and physician-reported disease progression had occurred in 104 patients in the thalidomide group and 107 in the active supportive care group; 92 patients in the thalidomide group and 93 in the active supportive care group had died. Median time to progression in the thalidomide group was 3·6 months (95% CI 3.2-4.1) compared with 3.5 months (2.3-4.8) in the active supportive care group (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.73-1.20, p=0.72). 43 (39%) grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in the thalidomide group and 31 (28%) in the active supportive care group; neurosensory events were reported by two (2%) patients on thalidomide and none on active supportive care, cardiac events by two (2%) patients on thalidomide and three (3%) on active supportive care, and thromboembolic events by three (3%) patients on thalidomide and none on active supportive care. INTERPRETATION: No benefit was noted in time to progression with the addition of thalidomide maintenance to first-line chemotherapy. Different treatment strategies are needed to improve outcomes in patients with malignant mesothelioma. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF), Eli Lilly, NSW Dust Disease Compensation Board, University of Sydney, and Cancer Australia.

Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of gemcitabine/cisplatin alone or with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage IIIB to IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2007 and March 2009, 904 patients were randomly assigned to daily sorafenib (400 mg twice a day) or matching placebo plus gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) for up to six 21-day cycles. Because of safety findings from the Evaluation of Sorafenib, Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Efficacy in NSCLC (ESCAPE) trial, patients with squamous cell histology were withdrawn from the trial in February 2008 and excluded from analysis. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP). RESULTS: The primary analysis population consisted of 772 patients (sorafenib, 385; placebo, 387); the two groups had similar demographic and baseline characteristics. Median OS was similar in the sorafenib and placebo groups (12.4 v 12.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; P = .401). By investigator assessment, sorafenib improved median PFS (6.0 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.83; P = .008) and TTP (6.1 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.73; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 drug-related adverse events more than two-fold higher in the sorafenib group included hand-foot skin reaction (8.6% v 0.3%), fatigue (7.3% v 3.6%), rash (5.7% v 0.5%), and hypertension (4.2% v 1.8%). No unexpected toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: This study did not meet its primary end point of improved OS when sorafenib was added to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Identification of predictive biomarkers is warranted in future trials of sorafenib.

A randomized phase II study of bortezomib and pemetrexed, in combination or alone, in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is a phase II randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bortezomib and pemetrexed alone or in combination, in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary end point was assessment of response rate. METHODS: A total of 155 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) on day 1 plus bortezomib (1.6mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 (Arm A) or pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) on day 1 (Arm B) or bortezomib (1.6mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 (Arm C) of a 21 day cycle. Response rate was assessed by investigators using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria and toxicity assessed by the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) grading system. RESULTS: Response rate was 7% in Arm A, 4% in Arm B, and 0% in Arm C; disease control rates were 73%, 62%, and 43%, respectively. Median overall survival was 8.6 months in Arm A, 12.7 months in Arm B, and 7.8 months in Arm C; time to progression was 4.0 months, 2.9 months, and 1.4 months, respectively. Most common reported adverse events >/=grade 3 were neutropenia (19%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and dyspnea (13%) in Arm A, neutropenia (10%) in Arm B, and dyspnea (13%) and fatigue (10%) in Arm C. CONCLUSION: In previously treated NSCLC the addition of bortezomib to pemetrexed was well tolerated but offered no statistically significant response or survival advantage versus pemetrexed alone, while bortezomib alone showed no clinically significant activity.

Survival without toxicity for cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a risk-benefit analysis of a large phase III study.

BACKGROUND: In a large phase III study, cisplatin and pemetrexed had non-inferior efficacy and better tolerability compared with cisplatin and gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current analysis characterised the clinical benefit (i.e. survival) relative to clinical risk (i.e. drug-related toxicity) of the doublets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1669 patients (of 1725 randomised) received 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed IV followed by 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin IV on day 1 or gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, administered every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit to risk) was defined as the time from randomisation to the first occurrence of any grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity or death, and was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. RESULTS: In the overall patient population, survival without grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity was significantly longer for patients treated with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus cisplatin and gemcitabine (HR=0.70; P<0.001), as was survival without grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.83; P<0.001). For patients with non-squamous NSCLC, survival without toxicity with cisplatin and pemetrexed was superior to cisplatin and gemcitabine for grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.64; P<0.001) and for grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR=0.77; P<0.001), whereas no treatment-arm difference was observed in the squamous subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-squamous NSCLC treated with front-line cisplatin and pemetrexed have superior survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit-to-risk profile) compared with patients treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine.

Formoterol mono- and combination therapy with tiotropium in patients with COPD: a 6-month study.

Although guidelines recommend combining long-acting bronchodilators in COPD, data are limited. We examined the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol, tiotropium and the combination in patients with COPD. Eight hundred and forty-seven patients with COPD (mean FEV(1) 52% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC 53%) were randomized to receive one of the following four treatments for 24 weeks: formoterol 10 microg b.i.d. plus tiotropium 18 microg o.d.; formoterol 10 microg b.i.d.; tiotropium 18 microg o.d., or placebo. The study was partially blinded (formoterol and placebo). For the primary endpoint, FEV(1) 2h post-dose after 24 weeks, there were small differences in favour of the combination therapy versus formoterol (0.07 L, p=0.044) or tiotropium (0.06 L, p=0.066). All three treatments were superior to placebo (p<0.001). The combination was statistically superior to monotherapy for: the primary endpoint (p=0.044 vs. formoterol); FEV(1) 5 min after the first dose (p<0.001) and at 12 weeks (p<0.05 vs. tiotropium); and peak expiratory flow averaged over the first 6 weeks (p<0.001 vs. both). The three active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo for secondary endpoints: COPD-related 'bad days', symptoms, use of rescue medication and peak expiratory flow, and aspects of health-related quality of life. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar with all active treatments, although COPD-related adverse events were more common with tiotropium. Combined bronchodilator therapy may be a valuable treatment option for patients with COPD.

Hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy as retreatment for symptomatic non-small-cell lung carcinoma: an effective treatment?

PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the efficacy, toxicity, and duration of the palliative effect of retreatment with external beam radiotherapy in symptomatic patients with recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-eight symptomatic patients with local recurrence of non-small-cell lung cancer underwent repeated treatment after previous radiotherapy (equivalent dose, 46-60 Gy). Reirradiation consisted of two fractions of 8 Gy on Days 1 and 8 with two opposed beams using 6-18-MV photon beams at the site of pulmonary recurrence. The physician scored symptom resolution. RESULTS: Relief of hemoptysis and superior vena cava syndrome could be obtained in all assessable cases (100%). Treatment was less effective for coughing (67%) and dyspnea (35%). The overall median duration of this palliative effect was 4 months. Palliation in almost all patients lasted more than one-half of their remaining life span. The Karnofsky performance score improved in 45% of assessable cases. One patient had Grade 2 esophagitis. Complications consisted of tumor-related fatal hemoptysis in 5 patients (17%) and 1 death from bronchoesophageal fistula (4%). CONCLUSION: External beam hypofractionated reirradiation can be effective as a palliative treatment for local complaints in non-small-cell lung cancer. The complication rate of reirradiation was acceptably low.

Standard versus intensified chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support in small-cell lung cancer: a prospective European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Lung Cancer Group Phase III Trial-08923.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact on survival of increasing dose-intensity (DI) of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated SCLC patients were randomized to standard CDE (cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 45 mg/m(2) on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 3 every 3 weeks, for five cycles) or intensified CDE (cyclophosphamide 1,250 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 55 mg/m(2) on day 1, and etoposide 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 3 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] 5 micro g/kg/d on days 4 to 13 every 2 weeks, for four cycles). Projected cumulative dose was almost identical on the two arms, whereas projected DI was nearly 90% higher on the intensified arm. Two hundred forty-four patients were enrolled. The first 163 patients were also randomized (2 x 2 factorial design) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo to assess their impact on preventing febrile leukopenia (FL). This report focuses on chemotherapy DI results. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 54 months, 216 deaths have occurred. Actually delivered DI on the intensified arm was 70% higher than on the standard arm. Intensified CDE was associated with more grade 4 leukopenia (79% v 50%), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (44% v 11%), anorexia, nausea, and mucositis. FL and number of toxic deaths were similar on the two arms. The objective response rate was 79% for the standard arm and 84% for the intensified arm (P =.315). Median survival was 54 weeks and 52 weeks, and the 2-year survival rates were 15% and 18%, respectively (P =.885). CONCLUSION: A 70% increase of CDE actual DI does not translate into an improved outcome in SCLC patients.